Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

Click here to download a pdf of Guns & Ammo‘s column Let’s Talk Limits. Technical Editor Dick Metcalf [above] penned the editorial for the December issue. Metcalf, a writer whose technical knowledge (or lack thereof) has earned him brickbats before, bases his editorial on a distinction between “infringement” and “regulation.” “I bring this up,” Metcalf writes, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That, dear reader, is a major WTF moment. One of many . . .

Metcalf’s dietribe [sic] turns to the antis’ favorite justification for infringing on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next. And what happens next in Metcalf’s editorial is bizarre—especially for an article that appears in a gun magazine:

Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified “well-regulated.”

Way. Sure Metcalf’s bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment’s introductory clause isn’t as bad as the antis’ assertion that the 2A only applies to Americans in a militia, but it’s the next worst thing. Coming from a gun guy, a man who trumpets the fact that he co-wrote The Firearm Owners Protection Act and taught college seminars on Constitutional law, well, I’m speechless.

Too bad Metcalf isn’t. Once again, he turns to the antis’ well-worn fundamentally flawed pro-regulation arguments to advocate gun control. He deploys ye olde auto analogy to defend state-issued carry permits against readers who believe that Second Amendment is the only authority they need to bear arms.

I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .

I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.

More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.

Equally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Wikipedia defines the term thusly:

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

I have a major issue with the word “unwarranted” (wikipedia won’t let me delete it). But the point is made: Americans have a civil right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by . . . wait for it . . . the Constitution. Specifically, the Second Amendment. This despite the fact that . . .

Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

So civil means natural, and natural means inviolable. Except by people who support their violation. People like Dick Metcalf, who ends his pro-gun control polemic by asserting that Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”

“But that’s just me . . .” Metcalf closes. Yes it is. And I believe that anyone who supports a gun magazine that prints this kind of anti-gun agitprop is supporting the diminution and destruction of our gun rights. Or is that just me? [h/t b0b]

In a practice scenario the logic behind more rounds allows the individual to improve his or her accuracy. Now sure what you’re trying to say… when in reality the more rounds you get.. the more opportunity to improve.

Lost one here- I just submitted my cancellation online. FYI: How do I end my subscription?

To cancel your subscription, please call 800-829-3340 or Send a Comment to our Customer Service Department through the Manage Your Account area of the Customer Service site. You may also write to us at Guns & Ammo, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235 .

For international orders please call 386-246-3326.

A refund will be issued for any un-served issues of your subscription.

Thanks to Big E listing the “How To” I just cancelled my subscription and told them why. I certainly encourage others to do the same.

BTW Ironically, in the same issue of Metcalf’s ill-conceived article a letter-to-the-editor calls out G&A for sitting on the sidelines during the 2A fight. The editors defend themselves by saying they try to be timely but that’s not always possible in their print edition. Then, to show that they consider the 2A important they refer you to Metcalf’s article. I wonder if they had read it before they referenced it?

Cameron, the word is “losing”, not “loosing”. There is a difference, believe me. Look it up. Loosing is related to lose and lost. When you lose something, you lost it. One example of loose: You’re holding the end of a rope; you let go of it. You have turned it loose. This is one of a long list of common missused words, called “homophones”, one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (as the words to, too, and two)
2 : a character or group of characters pronounced the same as another character or group. You shouldn’t feel too bad; you have a lot of company, but if you don’t want to appear to your readers as bordering on illiterate, you need to read what you write before you click “Post Comment” and learn better grammer.

Stopped ready G&A eight years ago because of their leanings that were starting to show. They have just become more blatant as time as passed and the idea of control is more believable by the uninformed public.

His first trial ended in a hung jury I believe. On second trial earlier this year, he was acquitted of all charges. He is a free man at this point. From what I read of the facts of the case, it was just one of those things that happens when alcohol and guns mix. The right guy survived this time. I haven’t heard what he doing these days. I suspect that he might be writing under a pseudonym. I always enjoyed his appearances on TV and his articles. Hope he does well.

He was not acquitted. Two trials ended with deadlocked juries that were split in favor of acquittal. In March the Mohave County attorney’s office moved to dismiss the second-degree murder charge and not try him again.

Prosecutor Rod Albright stated in his dismissal motion that “The evidence presently available for the state is apparently insufficient to overcome the statutory presumptions that strongly favor claims of self-defense and justification. Since the State has the additional burden to disprove claims of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no likelihood of a jury conviction without additional evidence.”

I just emailed G&A the following message. go to their web page, bottom left corner, contact:

I was disgusted to read the anti-RKBA garbage in Dick Metcalf’s “Let’s Talk Limits.” Ever heard of recoil magazine and Jerry Tsai? Well prepared to be recoiled. I and thousands of other shooters intend to boycott your magazine and contact every one of your sponsors to make sure they understand that their advertising dollars are being used to promote harm towards their industry. Unless you fire Dick Metcalf at once nd print an IMMEDIATE retraction/apology, G&A is FINISHED in this industry.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The next time you hear or see a progressive liberal saying that ‘regulated’ is interpreted as the government stating what the citizens are allowed to own, show them this: The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. [Merkel, p. 361. “Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations.”] In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. “[District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] -MD — with Jeff McKay and 4 others.

I’m no longer a reader of Guns & Ammo magazine either. But not because one of it’s editors wrote an anti-gun piece. I don’t think it was anti-gun at all, but that’s another discussion. I don’t believe Metcalf’s editorial was so off base to be fired. My point is, if his editor had the guts to read it and publish it in the magazine, then he should stand by his writer and defend the piece. Instead, they did the cowardly thing and fired him because of the hate mail from the die hards. If anyone should be fired, it is Jim Bequette for throwing a good writer and long time gun advocate under the bus to save his own hide. Pathetic.

“Constitution, What Constitution?”
IOs Metcalf former Navy like Carter and McCain?
Seems like all the media wannabes, not just Field and Stream, have swallowed the same steaming load and begged for more
reminiscent of the BBC and their decades long Boy perv society

There’s more to that story than meets the eye. Troy made a huge blunder with their pricing for their rifle for the deal they made with dicks. Dicks psold some rifles and made rainchecks for a crapload more, but troy was taking a loss on each rifle and renegged on the deal. I think instead of honoring the rainchecks, Dicks just used the sandy hook ordeal to say they weren’t going to sell any more AR15’s. So it may not neccessarily have been a political move, but rather a business move.

“So it may not neccessarily have been a political move, but rather a business move.”

IMHO, that’s just as bad if not perhaps worse. If that’s true then they used the murder of some children to save business face and a some money. (I’m not wanting to step into the middle of the discussion. Its merely that I’ve not read what you wrote anywhere else before and wanted to comment about it.)

“I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but . . .”…..

What an excellent analogy, Mr Metcalf.
You’ve just made our point for us, because indeed despite the DMV and Law Enforcements best efforts, unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers, illegal aliens and DUI repeat offenders drive where they wish no matter what.Any episode of Cops you pick is littered with traffic stops involving suspended licenses and unlicensed drivers.

Whether the law says it’s kosher or not, people will drive a car.So it goes with firearms. The government not only doesn’t have the legal standing to regulate firearms, they’re incapable of preventing it even if they had the legal standing to do what Metcalf suggests.

Speaking of legal standing, we also don’t have to read obsolete print media which is advancing Bloombergs agenda .Metcalf should be fired with prejudice, and if he’s not…Guns and Ammo WILL be used in place of IDPA targets at my next range session. I’ll buy an issue and use every ad within for target practice.

I’ll then include the bullet holed ads with a genuine nicely worded letter to the companies indicated , encouraging them to do business with a different firm.Understand , I mean no Ill will to anyone, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

His analogy was ignorant on another point, anyone can walk into a car dealership and buy any vehicle regardless of their age, license, etc., they just can’t operate it on public roads. His argument might have limited validity if he was discussing weapons carry permits, it is blissfully ignorant when applied to the purchase of any firearm.

Might I ask, if such a person you describe is a real threat to society, why is he not receiving involuntary mental health treatment or still in prison?

The only solution the government sees is to punish everyone with the NICS system while the crazy people and criminals still get guns illegally. If NICS went away with its pathetic prosecution rate, there would be no change in violent crime.

Actually, the M1A Abrams is a tracked vehicle and that is why you wouldn’t be able to run it on the roads. That said, DMV has no say in what you collect. I have vehicles that I legally own that aren’t registered for highway use. I have affidavit to that effect. There are people that own Stuart Tanks, Sherman Tanks, some soviet tanks etc. for re-enactments etc. You can even buy half tracks.

I am happy to have had a part in the destruction of Recoil.
Far Too Many ‘icons’ of the gun world are selling out the Constitution, and their nation, next they will be backing Obama’s Climate Regulations which are only designed to cripple this nation.
“The defense of liberty is no vice!”
I smell Sunshine Patriots every time this rag comes into view, time to save some trees and end all GandA publications for the good of this nation’s future.

Disagree. Recoil is still in the mag rack at my local Wally World and the content gets better every month. The online mag is growing as well and is polished and professional. I’ve met and talked with Iain Harrison, the new editor. The man is unswervingly pro-2A… period. If you’re holding a grudge against a magazine that did the right thing and canned a moron, I believe you’re making a mistake. We don’t grow our numbers by shooting the wounded.

Recoil did NOT DO THE RIGHT THING, they did NOT CAN the previous Progressive, he was transferred to a place where he could continue to damage the BOR, just as with the IRS, a horizontal promotion so that the puppets can say the problem is solved.
Your low information endorsement is highly questionable and serves only to expose the depths that Progressives will descend to in order to push the anti-Constitution agenda

So, let’s review…
1. I’ve met and talked with Iain Harrison at some length.
2. I once again began buying Recoil after the meeting/conversations.
3. In my opinion, the content is much improved both online & paper.
4. I stated that Tsai had been canned. Probably misspoke. However, in my 40+ years in the workforce, a “resignation” under such circumstances is usually a face-saving euphemism for “fired”.
And all these lead to the conclusion that I’m a Progressive.
Brilliant.
People of the gun need to be living in a big tent, not excluding any/everyone whose “hoplophilic theology” isn’t as pure as your own.
Faulty thinking and crappy allegations such as this aren’t part of the solution. They are part of the problem.
Yep. Metcalf needs to be fired, now. But, if G&A does the right thing and boots his a$$ into the street, how does the gun community as a whole benefit by watching another old media source (that may be some bored person at a magazine rack’s first intro to guns) dry up and die?
Low information? I don’t think so.
Different opinion? Obviously.

Iain Harrison is awesome (particularly for an Englishman :D) and definitely a good face to help Recoil recover from the massive mp7 SNAFU. Always liked seeing him on Guns and Gear and the other Crimson Trace commercials when he was workin for them.

Edit: Just read the comment from ensitue and have to do some google fu to find out about the previous recoil editor. Thought I read on here that he was sh1tcanned?

Edit2: He did resign and I havent really found anything to the contrary yet. PLEASE correct if I am wrong as Id like to find out the truth of the matter. However, trolls should go toe tickle a shotgun 😀

I did cancel my Recoil subscription after the whole MP7 Tsai fiasco. I recently restarted it though. The last issue was really good, nearly 150 pages of really good articles on AR triggers, the old Springfield armory, the Sig brace, incognito rifle cases and backpacks, making a gillie suit, clearing stoppages, tacticool gear, and of course guns.

Disturbing and disgusting, but not unexpected. Many “supporters” of gun rights (Mr Metcalf no doubt would be included) are horrified at open carry of a handgun, which is the litmus test of a true friend of our rights. Luckily I’ve never given that outfit any money, nor will I.

I haven’t wasted money on a dead tree gun rag in years. I finally got tired of the constant stream of PR for the advertisers. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I’ve even looked at the G&A website more than once or twice in the last year.

I have been watching their TV show, but I’m getting pretty tired of it so it won’t be much of an effort to stop.

The “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a theater compares apples to oranges. It is not an equivalent comparison and not a logical argument. Antis continually use it as an example for regulation on freedom of speech – but it is not a correct comparison. Again and again I have to argue this point with them. Never ends.

Yelling fire in a theater could cause people to be trampled and killed. Shooting a gun in a theater can cause someone to die (by bullets). Both of which are and should be illegal (with exception to using a gun in defense for saving your life or another – yelling fire in a theater cannot save any lives). Comparing yelling fire and shooting a gun in a theater are a similar second and first amendment comparison.

Comparing yelling fire in a theater and gun regulation is not equivalent. Banning guns or banning some types of guns is equivalent of banning some types of words that you wouldn’t be able to use in a theater or anywhere else. Do we ban words or statements? I think not. Do we sew mouths shut? Nope. Not equivalent at all.

Yelling fire in a theater incites a panic and can kill. Walking into a theater and randomly shooting at things can also kill. Both are already illegal.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the two SCOTUS cases about “yelling fire in a theater” The second SCOTUS case overturned the first for the very reason that if there is a real fire, then you must yell and alert people to the fact.

However, there is a point here for the first and the second. You rights are protected to “yell fire” even if false but most especially if true there is fire. The second amendment should be held in the same way. You have the right of self defense if someone is trying to do you or others harm, you should go to jail if you use a gun to commit a crime.

If laws simply stated that guns are illegal when you use them to commit a crime any crime, we would have the same standard as the “yell fire” example. You can yell fire all you want unless you do so in such away that it harms someone.

You cannot be arrested for merely possessing the capability to yell fire in a crowded theater. Illegal “constructive possession” is not merely having a Broca’s area, lungs, and a pair of vocal cords.

But suddenly when it comes to the 2A, there are all manner of things the gov’t has infringed on such as possessing certain firearms (FA, SBS, SBR, AOW, DD, suppressors, etc.) without their express say-so and constructive possession can put you in prison for ten.

Like Gloomhound said. The “you can’t yell fire” argument is alway missing a couple of key words. Here’s how it should read: “You can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and not expect to face the legal consequences of your actions”. For further information on how this short blurb of a line was used by Justice Holmes in a 1919 SCOTUS case that was eventually overturned, see: Schenck v US.

The “can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is an urban myth so pervasive that it is even believed by many attorneys, and by at least one gun-hating US Supreme Court judge. Nevertheless, the legal opinion this is from does not say that at all.

According to the original case, you are REQUIRED to shout ‘Fire!’ if there really is a fire, and even if there is not, you must be proven to have planned to incite harm. Plus the underlying case was overturned, which was about Woodrow Wilson’s stifling of the Bill of Rights.

then you have a very narrow viewpoint, the same was said about outlawing Communists from holding public funded jobs, that law was changed and now we have an education system that produces 10,000 brainwashed commies each year.

Time to pack Metcalf up, as happend with Jim Zumbo, for a Come To Jesus moment with Ted Nugent. Dick’s a good guy, but even good guys can be confused. After all, it took the U.S. Supreme Court to finally tell a whole LOT of people that the 2nd Amendment meant exactly what is plainly written. So, time for a Ted Talk, and I’m not talking about some nerdy tech convention.

An editor for a gun magazine has no business writing about firearms regulation without having first read the two major SCOTUS cases directly speaking to the meaning of the exact words of the 2nd Amendment. To opine publicly on gun regulation under the 2nd amendment, but uttering statements both at odds with the Court’s opinion and more restrictive in outlook that the Court, is bizarre. His opinions reflect incompetence as to the subject matter about which he was writing. He is writing, though, about an issue that goes to the heart of professional firearms-related journalism. “Aw, cut the guy a break!” You must be kidding.

Look, it may just be me, but can we stop going on about the 2nd Amendment? The right to bear arms isn’t a right because the constitution says so- it’s a right because the world(or at least America) is a better place when people have that right. Besides, the constitution can be (sometimes justifiably) modified. (Black people are no longer 3/5 of a person, income taxes stopped being illegal, etc.)

I hate to sound like an IBB guy, but there do have to be some limits: a nuclear weapon is an arm, and I sure as hell want there to be a law against anyone building or owning one. Same with a truck bomb big enough to bring down the building it’s parked in front of.

Guns and Ammo got this one wrong because they don’t know what a burden 16 hours of classes is for folks working hand to mouth who have the most to gain from defending themselves. But a 30 minute video watchable at the gun store? I’d be okay with that- The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when every male and most females knew how to fire a gun- the concept of training was ridiculous. I’d say a 30 minute class/video is acceptable and compatible with the right to bear arms.

The opposition won’t stop talking about 2a so we have to take up the challenge. Should we all have access to nukes and enough c4 to erase Mt. Rushmore? No. But should we be restricted to shotguns and air rifles only after months of investigation and letters of reference? Again. No.

A lot of the gun related issues could be worked out to the satisfaction of most folks if the opposition would simply meet us in an open and honest dialogue. They will not because they have an agenda. Disarm us.

I’ve said it many times. I have no desire for an Uzi or anything belt fed. But I’ll support your right to own these if for no other reason than it puts another layer of protection between the antis and the guns I do wish to own.

I have enough desire for a variety of belt-feds for the both of us. 100% agreed, they will not stop until total disarmament and it seems they are actively prepping the next generation of koolaid drinkers to hold the torch for them.

the fienslime interview where she says “Mr and Ms. America, turn em in” should be all the evidence we have needed.

Once you allow the state to decide that state-approved training is necessary to exercise your right to keep and bear arms you have allowed the state to regulate/infringe upon a natural right.

They then get to choose the trainers. And the authorized training facilities. And set a fee for both the trainers’ training and trainees’ training. And decide location for the training. And the acceptable level of competency needed to receive a permit.

And decide which guns are allowed by the permit. And what information you must submit to obtain the permit; including your name, address, physical characteristics, Driver’s License number and Social Security ID. And what misdemeanors or felonies disqualify you from the permit. And how often you must re-apply for the permit. And what fees you must pay at that time.

Does that sound like something you’d like applied to your natural right to free speech or other civil right? In fact, how can anyone who opposes literacy test for voting (as I do) approve of a competency test for gun ownership? I know which of the two is more dangerous.

@Robert Farago- what you’re making is a slippery slope argument. The problem is the slope goes both ways: if we allow none of what you’re talking about categorically, then we are in the position of watching some wackjob drive a truck bomb up to a mall, or a school, and doing nothing about it until after he sets it off.

I happen to believe that grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles (javalins) and anti-air weapon systems SHOULD be privately purchasable. If we are to have any guarantee against our own government’s tyranny, we need weapons that we can use to defeat it’s armored and air assets. But I draw the line at truck bombs and nuclear weapons.

@ensitue- I do not regularly visit either site.

@Software Cowboy- That’s the kind of talk that makes us RKBA people look like idiots. Nuclear weapons being banned doesn’t stop people from wanting to build them. But it does allow the government to track uranium, monitor precision machining equipment, and otherwise take action against such activity. Otherwise, we’re in the position of allowing a (suspected but unconvicted) terrorist to build a nuclear bomb in the suburbs of Houston, and being unable to do anything about it until after he (or she) sets it off.

@RockOnHellChild- Bombs are ordinance- but so is ammunition. If that’s your argument, then we’re defenseless when San Francisco passes stupid ammunition control laws.

@Pulatso- That is the literal text of the 3/5 clause. The implication of that clause was that slavery was legal in the United States when founded. It wasn’t until the 13th Amendment that it was specifically outlawed. The idea being that the constitution is not perfect and can be amended. Of course, it can also be amended for ill (you can thank the 16th Amendment for the IRS).

“…if we allow none of what you’re talking about categorically, then we are in the position of watching some wackjob drive a truck bomb up to a mall, or a school, and doing nothing about it until after he sets it off.”

A futile attempt. You can watch many of the instructables online on how to make ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). Mix it with diesel fuel and you have a bomb. A great many bomb’s can be made from over the counter products. Bomb’s are already regulated – but it didn’t stop McVeigh did it? You can draw the line anywhere you want – but criminals don’t care about your lines.

@VKA
Slippery slope goes both ways? Umm…I may be wrong, but isn’t it already illegal to drive a big truck bomb up next to a building and blow it up? Yet…it happened. Maybe he just didn’t know he was breaking the law? That MUST be it…because the only reason the rest of us aren’t blowing up buildings is we’re familiar with that law, not because we’re not insane.

@tfunk and @anonymous
After the first time ammonium nitrate was used 20 years ago, it hasn’t been used since in a major attack. Why is that?

Since 9/11, No American airplanes have never been hijacked again. Why is that?

For all it’s (many, many ills) our government has proven to be very, very effective at countering certain threats after the first time they are used.

There are acts that we outlaw because they directly harm someone else- murder, robbery, etc. Then there are acts that we outlaw because of the potential that they might harm someone else- driving while drunk, getting drunk in public, a truck driver going too long without sleep, etc. The anti-gun crowd thinks that banning guns falls into the second category, foolishly failing to realize that it won’t work and will harm most people.

But that is not to say that there are no legitimate laws that ban activity because of the risk they might hurt someone else. Strict regulation of ammonium nitrate has verifiably worked, as has strict regulation of nuclear materials (barring one crazy incident with a boy scout who tried to build a nuclear reactor- and even he couldn’t get his hands on the highly enriched uranium you need for fission).

Seriously? Did you read my posts? I’m in favor of ANTI-TANK MISSILES and ANTI-AIR ARTILLERY being made available for sale to any citizen that wants them. What part of that is pro-gun control? What part of that makes me worse than the anti-gun wackos like Feinstein and Co? My standard has always been this: if the weapon has a legitimate use by a force fighting for freedom against a military force (domestic or foreign), it should be allowed for sale to the public.

Bombs are a Red Herring? Really?
This debate turns on what kind of regulation counts as “infringing” the RKBA. I would argue that taking a class before getting a concealed carry license is not that big of a burden and doesn’t infringe- provided the class is of short length and affordable. Robert Farrago’s response was that ANY infringement is unconstitutional and wrong. I replied by taking him to the extreme example, and proving (in my opinion) that some government regulation is a must. The only question is how to minimize it as much as possible. My example of a bomb was made in response to the assertion that ANY regulation is unacceptable.

“Strict regulation of ammonium nitrate has verifiably worked, as has strict regulation of nuclear materials.”

Ammonium nitrate as I have said before can be made. There are instructables online. I can purchase buckets of ammonium nitrate from the sporting goods stores in the form of tannerite. Ammonium nitrate can be refined and chemically processed from large abundant supplies of fertilizer. Your example has no merit.

“My example of a bomb was made in response to the assertion that ANY regulation is unacceptable.”

And your example has no merit and we have refuted your argument and provided a direct counter example … and instead of addressing it you wiggled around and used diversionary tactics and statements that don’t actually address the point made.

I am well aware of what a Red Herring is. My argument is in no way a red herring and I’ve addressed all of your points.

1) My argument is germane because we are arguing over this principle: is any level of regulation of weapons and arms themselves acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment/RKBA? I say yes, you and many others say no. My argument is this: if regulation of nuclear, chemical, and conventional WMDs is acceptable, then some regulation of weapons/ordinance is okay in principle. From that, a 30 minute or less video that must by law be shown to all concealed carry applicants is also acceptable and compatible with/does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and broader RKBA.

2) “Ammonium nitrate as I have said before can be made. There are instructables online. I can purchase buckets of ammonium nitrate from the sporting goods stores in the form of tannerite. Ammonium nitrate can be refined and chemically processed from large abundant supplies of fertilizer. Your example has no merit.”
If making a bomb was so easy, why hasn’t it been done more often? You claim making an ammonium nitrate bomb is easy via commercially available materials. Well, Al Queda’s not stupid, and neither are a lot of wack-jobs in this country. Why haven’t they succeeded? Yes, the Boston Bombers used a different technique- but that was the first successful attack on the US since 9/11- 10 YEARS and we’ve had 1 attack, despite a lot of people that want to kill us. I say that sales of tannerite are quietly tracked- and if you buy a ton of it (or even small amounts from different stores), your name just ended up on a government watchlist- and you’ll be getting a visit from someone pretty soon. How about this: go ahead and buy a (literal) ton of tannerite- and let me know in a week if you’re not in Guantamino.

Response to item 1):“From that, a 30 minute or less video that must by law be shown to all concealed carry applicants is also acceptable and compatible with/does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and broader RKBA.”

If they are required to watch a 30 min video which they cannot waive and cannot obtain their firearm until they watch the video then it is infringing upon the second amendment. The second amendment does not state:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms after watching a 30 minute training video, shall not be infringed.”

It is each persons individual responsibility to read the manual supplied with their firearm. It is not the government’s responsibility to “take care of them.” The gun dealer from which they bought the firearm can demonstrate its safe operation.

Response to item 2):“You claim making an ammonium nitrate bomb is easy via commercially available materials. Well, Al Queda’s not stupid, and neither are a lot of wack-jobs in this country. Why haven’t they succeeded?”

I don’t know – they haven’t tried it? They felt airplanes were a better plan? They succeeded in that.

“Yes, the Boston Bombers used a different technique- but that was the first successful attack on the US since 9/11- 10 YEARS and we’ve had 1 attack, despite a lot of people that want to kill us.”

Those kids? … and the bomb made with fireworks and pressure cookers? My kid could make one of those. Anyone in Boston could have. The fact that there was no one prior or subsequent that performed that attack doesn’t mean that anyone could not have/do so. You say it was the “first successful attack since 9/11” but anyone could make one at any time today and it would not be possible to track. Just because there are no “successful” attacks doesn’t mean that regulation or government oversight has prevented them… it could mean that no attack was even made.

“I say that sales of tannerite are quietly tracked- and if you buy a ton of it (or even small amounts from different stores), your name just ended up on a government watchlist- and you’ll be getting a visit from someone pretty soon.”

Unless you buy it with US currency (cash). Or make it. It is just ammonium nitrate with powdered aluminum.

The fact of the matter is simple. Risks exist in life. Risk of dying early (because we all die eventually). Risks of loss, risks of life, risks of limb, risks of loosing those we care about. In my opinion, the solution to this problem is not laws that people intent on break who can and will break anyways, but to address the matter specifically, exactly and at it’s root cause. That matter is the family unit. Quality Character, morals, ethics, and the quality of knowing the difference between right and wrong and passing that down to our children. If people are suicide bombing themselves this often, then it says something about the quality of life for these people and possibly the justice they feel was not obtained.

City of Chicago anti-gun mayors Daley and Emmanuel forced me to get firearms training and it was the best thing that could have happened to me.

The instructors opened my eyes to gun control / gun rights issues, which led me to seek out more education, brought me here to this site, changed my politics from independent to single-issue voter, and more.

So long as training is being delivered by gun people, the training can really reinforce pro-gun messages. That can help grow the gun rights community.

I think it’s hilarious that thanks to Democrat-driven anti-gun training requirements, I will not likely ever again vote for a Democrat.

Would you rather just be fighting the antis on licensing and training requirements alone, or fighting against an AWB and against Gun Free Zones at the same time? More energy you expend on multiple issues leads to less effectiveness overall.

Most of the fears of the Gun Free Zone supporters are that “untrained permit holders” will miss their targets – easily rectified with training. I’m sure you have the anti-AWB script down though.

Do you really think that if someone wants to build a nuclear weapon will stop just because it is against the law? Does the line of thinking go like this “Gee, I really want to build and set off this nuke. I’ve got the know how and the materials. It’s probably going to kill tens of thousands directly, poison the air, ground and water killing more over a number of years. I can live with that. But, if I get caught I’ll be doing hard time at a minimum, not because of the killing or damage, but because there is a law against owning a nuke. Dang, I really wanted to do that, but I just can’t risk going to jail or being executed over it. I guess I’ll find something else to do.”?

Based on a little research that I have done, nuclear bombs are not banned, they are just highly regulated. If you have the resources, it is theoretically possible for you to make a civilian nuke. The requirements that you have to legally meet make it a practical impossibility.

This is the kind of talk that makes us RKBA people look like idiots. Nuclear weapons being banned doesn’t stop people from wanting to build them. But it does allow the government to track uranium, monitor precision machining equipment, and otherwise take action against such activity. Otherwise, we’re in the position of allowing a (suspected but unconvicted) terrorist to build a nuclear bomb in the suburbs of Houston, being unable to do anything about it until after he (or she) sets it off. If an activity is banned, the police can monitor for and take action against it before a hundred thousand people die.

“If an activity is banned, the police can monitor for and take action against it before a hundred thousand people die.”

You’re kidding right? I’m not even going to address this.

The government has nothing to worry about in regards to nuclear bombs. The experience and theory behind it is so complex that unless you were a nuclear engineer and was employed in the process of making nuclear bombs, you would likely die trying to build one. The equipment and facility to build one alone no individual would be able to economically afford. You would have better luck breaking into a secure bomb storage facility than trying to build one. The other statements you made regarding government monitoring of “precision machining equipment” seem pretty bogus. Do you have any evidence of such to support such an unlikely activity?

I happen to have studied the area of nuclear and WMD proliferation somewhat extensively. Building a nuclear bomb is merely a series of technical challenges that must be overcome. Believe me- if starving, crazed wack-jobs in North Korea could do it, I think that’s evidence that a sufficiently motivated group in the US could as well. As for precision machining- that is a critical component of any nuclear weapons program and surprisingly difficult to do- you need it to make the centrifuges to enrich Uranium, and the US has banned the export of such equipment to various (non-trusted) countries for many years via ITAR, among other things. Such companies get visits from various agencies of the government periodically reminding them of what they can and can not do.

Look- this is a sideshow debate. If you won’t accept nuclear, how about chemical? If we do not ban things like the production or possession chemical weapons, then here’s what could happen: Al Queda sends over an a well-funded, un-convicted, no-history terrorist to the US on a student visa. That student then proceeds to buy a bunch of large beakers and flasks, and makes up several batches of mustard gas. Even if the Dow Chemical company spots that this guy is ordering 2 cloroethanol, potassium sulfide, and hydrocloric acid (the modified Meyer-Clarke method used by the Germans in WW1), they can’t do anything. And neither can the police or anyone they report it to- until the guy drives up to an elementary school playground and lobs it over the wall (which is already illegal). After all, how do you prove what this guy is planning on doing, until he does it? Hence my conclusion that we need some level of regulation. How does this apply to gun control? The principle: if regulation of weapons is acceptable to prevent the above scenario, then to extend it some regulation of the RKBA is acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment and the principle of RKBA for a free society.

“Building a nuclear bomb is merely a series of technical challenges that must be overcome. Believe me- if starving, crazed wack-jobs in North Korea could do it, I think that’s evidence that a sufficiently motivated group in the US could as well.”

Fine Agreed. I agree that if someone motivated enough wants to build or obtain something (be it ammonium nitrate, firearms, centrifuges, yellow cake uranium mineral, etc, then they will do it regardless of regulation). In total agreement.

“After all, how do you prove what this guy is planning on doing, until he does it?”

Now I see that your point is… to prevent crimes from happening… before they happen. Basically, this is not possible as long as we go with the statement “innocent until proven guilty” – they are mutually exclusive. Now that those have been laid out and established the real question becomes… which is better? Living in a society where individuals perform terrible suicide attacks and live with the risk of being blown up by a pharmaceutical induced suicide bomber/shooter/etc vs everyone living the animal farm/1984 meme that every purchase and every action is recorded and analysed by the US government (and forcefully taxed as much as possible due to this level of power). My personal opinion is… I prefer freedom in lieu of being a well fed, protected, caged animal, shepherded by a master that chooses my fate, and the founding fathers preferred this too. Most people of this nation were of this opinion when this country was founded.

Also, in regards to the above, if you know someone who is building a bomb or a weapon with intent to kill people… there is a charge of “attempted murder” that exists. One should have proof of intent rather than just point at a weapon or bomb or a perceived weapon or bomb.

“Hence my conclusion that we need some level of regulation. How does this apply to gun control? The principle: if regulation of weapons is acceptable to prevent the above scenario, then to extend it some regulation of the RKBA is acceptable and compatible with the 2nd Amendment and the principle of RKBA for a free society.”

Yea… except they are not compatible. They are not even literally compatible. The second amendment clearly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is a very clear, precise statement that lists no objections, no exceptions, and no limits. The limits they you are looking for are “common sense.” The 1st amendment doesn’t mean one can shout fire in a theater when there is no fire for the sake inciting a panic. The 1st amendment doesn’t mean you can publicly slander and make unsubstantiated defamatory statements towards people. The 2nd amendment doesn’t mean you can point a gun in someones face and state “I have the right to keep and bear arms.” As you can see… there are already common sense limits. The freedom exists within the statement… however if you violate the rights of others be prepared to face the consequences. I guess the founding father’s didn’t include this because it was obvious.

Posted this above, forgot that tags don’t work here: Bombs are ordinance- but so is ammunition. If that’s your argument, then we’re defenseless when San Francisco passes stupid ammunition control laws.

The 3\5 clause was an anti slavery article, the slave states wanted slaves to count as full citizens. Why? Because the greater the population, the greater the number of house reps and the greater then number of electoral college votes for each state, making it easier to protect pro slavery laws.

Posted above, forgot that tags don’t work: That is the literal text of the 3/5 clause. The implication of that clause was that slavery was legal in the United States when founded. It wasn’t until the 13th Amendment that it was specifically outlawed. The idea being that the constitution is not perfect and can be amended. Of course, it can also be amended for ill (you can thank the 16th Amendment for the IRS).

“I hate to sound like an IBB guy, but there do have to be some limits: a nuclear weapon is an arm, and I sure as hell want there to be a law against anyone building or owning one. Same with a truck bomb big enough to bring down the building it’s parked in front of.”

If a person has the intellectual capability and available knowledge to obtain/purify the materials and construct a nuclear weapon. They will… and they will do it without your or anyone else’s permission. Bombs are already regulated – despite this, Timothy McVeigh blew up a large building and killed 168 people. Regulations regarding bombs did not stop his efforts. It is already illegal to kill people. Quests to thwart access to materials that could be used to make a bomb is futile. Many components of bombs are readily available as they are used in consumer products. To effectively regulate this access would make a vast number of common products regulated with endless red tape, registration, and regulation. By the time it is effectively implemented – most people would prefer living in a world where the risk exists rather than living the life of such extreme regulation and lack of privacy. I think freedom is a better end don’t you? Of course… a certain amount of courage is required to accept that viewpoint.

You do realize that because such bombs are banned, the government has (successfully) tracked ammonium nitrate purchases, installed chemical sensors around critical buildings, and prevented any further mass attacks for the past 20 years since McVeigh?

Sure…. Like I posted above. Ammonium nitrate can be made and is readily available in the form of fertilizer – and tannerite. If the gov had such abilities of prevention… they could have stopped an airplane from crashing into the pentagon. Their attempts are futile. You cannot guard every building from attack at any moment. That is like making the claim that police are everywhere simultaneously keeping us all safe. Sure.

Also bombs are not banned. They are regulated. If you have the necessary permits and pay the government money (ding, ding, that’s what it is about) then you can have them. This is how demolition/blasting/landscaping companies exist.

With freedom comes some risk. Liberty, responsibility, and risk cannot be separated. The government can attempt to continually reduce risk but liberty always suffers. At some point, there are diminishing returns. IMHO, we’ve long since passed the point of diminishing returns. I don’t want the government attempting to reduce my individual risk at such an expense to my individual liberty. The contractual constraint on government reads “shall not be infringed” and the government is in gross breech of that contract. The hour is late for government to back off. The risk is ours to individually take. The solution is not for the federal government to break the contract with the States. The solution is for states and individuals that want such nanny-ism to leave the United States of America for they want something which is forbidden by our Constitution; the contract through which the People agreed to be governed. Did I mention, “shall not be infringed”?

(Of course, there alternatively could be a Constitutional amendment… then I’d have to take my leave of the country. )

You have to be licensed by the US nuclear regulatory commission to even HANDLE the components of a nuclear bomb (ie the radioactive material) – and if you need a government license in order to do that, no ordinary joe schmoe is going to be able to get their stinkin’ hands on plutonium – because the process to even GET there (looks like becoming a nuclear engineer or whatnot, unless you’re some child prodigy) more or less includes a background check at multiple levels that should be snaring any potential psychotic/terrorist.

There should be an equivalent by the CDC in licensing individuals to handle biological materials, and the same for handling chemical materials.

A point many people inside as well as outside the gun community miss is that 2A doesn’t grant anyone anything. What it does is recognize that a right to keep and bear arms is one of those “endowed by our creator” rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and therefore said right predates the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the government established by those documents. It then goes on to forbid “infringement” of that pre existing right by the government. For a deeper analysis just look up US v Cruikshank.

In short, if Sens. Feinstein and Schumer were to see their fondest dream come true, and 2A were repealed, our right to keep and bear arms would still exist.

The individual right to keep and bear arms is part of the natural right to self defense. Since the 2A is an express prohibition on the actions of government, deletion of the 2A wouldn’t negate the natural right of an individual to self defense (RKBA). Since control of the individual RKBA isn’t enumerated as a power delegated to the federal government, they haven’t the legitimate power at all. It’s really bad how our government infringes on individual rights in this area because they are violating their bounds on two fronts; it’s not enumerated AND the 2A prohibits them from doing it. That’s an aspect I’ve been neglectful in pointing out in my comments. Thanks for the reminder.

Please don’t bring out that old canard about blacks being considered 3/5 of a person. It was never so.

The Southern slavemasters wanted their slaves to be counted as full people only for the purposes of determining the population of the House districts in the South, and therefore their representation in the House… but since those slaves could not vote, the effect of that would have been to greatly exaggerate the power of those who could vote (the whites) in the slave states, which would allow them to perpetuate the institution of slavery. It was the slavemasters who supported counting the slaves as full people for purposes of representation. Essentially, each of those slaves would be casting a vote to keep slavery intact, just by being alive, if that had come to pass.

It was the abolitionists who wanted the slaves to not count for the purposes of representation at all. Certainly, that does not mean that the Southern slavemasters considered their slaves 100% people, and the abolitionist northerners considered them 0% people. Quite the opposite of reality, of course.

The Southerners were trying to have their cake and eat it too– they wanted slaves to be 100% people when it came to assigning representatives, but 0% people when it came to voting, having rights as a citizen, having rights as a human being… being something other than chattel. The northern states wanted the representation to match the facts– that is, that the slaves were not part of the population of the South as long as they were owned by someone other than themselves.

From this clash was born the 3/5 compromise, which was still a big win for the slavemasters. The slaves were in no way considered 3/5 of a person, though– in every conceivable way, the slaves were considered to be livestock, not people at all. So then each slave only cast 3/5 of a vote to retain slavery by virtue of being alive, not a full vote. The real story was that they were 0/5 of a person– that’s kind of inherent within the word “slave”… and the preferable situation for them would have been if the representation matched that fact.

It’s a real shame that the showdown over states’ rights had to be over something so indefensible as slavery. That leads people to thinking that Lincoln’s imperialistic presidency and the expansion of the fed’s power was a justified thing, since in this case it led to a just end (the end of slavery). To be on the side of states’ rights seemed to put you on the side of the slavers… it’s a little hard to defend that way. A lot of people still get tripped up in that today.

Nowhere did the Constitution say “blacks are 3/5ths of a person.” It refers to slaves, does not mention color or race of those slaves, and counts Indians as zero. It did not prevent a one-for-one count of free people who were black, some of whom owned slaves.

Moreover, this was a compromise of an attempt to curb slavery — it reduced only the weight the southern, major slaveholding states would have in the House of Representatives. They wanted slaves counted one-for-one. The North didn’t want them counted at all. Franklin was the inspiration behind this original anti-slavery compromise.

What exactly is the option for preventing the dangerous from easy access to guns? I just always hear there can’t be any infringement, but then that means guns for everyone including murderers and such.

I haven’t heard a real answer on this. Do you just want everyone to have guns, including those that you know beyond a doubt will kill once they get one? I don’t understand that logic.

Who says they want no restrictions on people that have done murder? What I see is people saying that if you’ve committed a crime, served your sentence your rights should be restored. If you’ve been convicted of murder you should be on death row or in for life. No guns for you.

“You missed the part where people want NO restrictions, on people who HAVE murdered as well. If someone goes “I’m going to shoot that person” you don’t hand them a gun because they haven’t yet done it.”

The second amendment is not special. It is no more important than the others. We also want no restrictions on the others. People are liable for their actions. If they guilty – they should be punished. They should be punished to the point where they recognize they were wrong and understand that prison is terrible and they fear breaking the law. If people do not fear the consequences of breaking the law and do not respect the law that is the problem. Trying to make additional laws on top of laws governing actions that focus on possession of materials in attempts to thwart and/or reduce criminal action is ridiculous. They already have no fear of the force of law and have no respect for the law… what is further laws going to provide? …Nothing.

If someone went to prison and were released after a felony crime, I believe the bill of rights still applies to them. After all, if people don’t feel safe, or feel that the criminal did not learn his lesson, or does not respect the law, then maybe he/she didn’t stay in prison long enough – maybe the punishment was not severe enough. Criminals in my opinion that have served their time and paid their price should be welcomed back into society with full rights (rights are rights not privileges). The sentence should be severe enough that there is no doubt about this.

“We don’t live in a free country, so that’s a totally moot point too.”

Maybe we don’t… it is certainly not a moot point. Those who don’t fight for their rights and don’t voice their opposition to their elimination wont have any. It may be moot to you – but it is not moot to us. Generations of defeatist, carefree views, and misplaced responsibility are likely the reason we are not as free as we once were. Society is not responsible. Each and every one of us on a individual personal level are responsible for each and every action and consequence we individually invoked. Responsibility cannot be placed on “society” – it is placed on the individuals within.

Agreed! Do we want to be safe or do we want to be free? And is the only means of being safe brought about by the legalities of regulation? Safety is our individual responsibility. Not the responsibility of government. No one can keep you safe. Anything can happen at any time – this is fact of life. Trying to control it does not change anything and ultimately obtains an end result worse than the initial problem itself (Not free… and not safe).

You don’t simply allow easy access to guns to murderers simply because they COULD get it illegally.

If simply training new gun owners stops 25% of negligent discharges, it would be worth it because it would prevent lawmakers from coming after all of us. The “no compromise” types say no to this, and say said training should be voluntary. Well guess what? The people most likely to negligently discharge, WON’T GET TRAINING!

Not everyone is responsible and smart, plenty of fools buy guns and walk around their house drunk, with it loaded and put their finger on the trigger. Look at the kids who’ve shot themselves or others because of a moron for crying out loud. Saying we can’t do anything to prevent these is defeatist nonsense and it hurts us more than it helps us.

So laws say requiring training makes you more open to murder? Give me a break. I guarantee NICS has stopped at least one former murderer from easily grabbing a gun, but taking that stance means it’s something that can’t be proven.

Nate, your post has multiple levels of straw-man arguments to it. #1 murderers shouldn’t be on the street. #2 you ignore the fact than there are a plethora of LEO shootings each year that shows lack of proficiency and judgement with Empire State building and Times Square shootings as an example. #3 you forget that LEO are humans and sometimes commit criminal acts.

What exactly is the option for preventing the dangerous from easy access to guns? I just always hear there can’t be any infringement, but then that means guns for everyone including murderers and such. I haven’t heard a real answer on this. Do you just want everyone to have guns, including those that you know beyond a doubt will kill once they get one? I don’t understand that logic.

I’ll explain some logic to you.
First, here in the US, we are innocent until proven guilty. That is logical right? Because if we were guilty until proven innocent – then almost everyone would be guilty as they couldn’t “prove” their innocence and everyone could and would be locked up at the whim of elected and appointed officials. (Think salem witch trials). To sum that up – you shouldn’t prevent people “perceived” as dangerous to accessing a gun or any other object that could be used to kill someone. If people were to prevent people from accessing anything that could be used to kill someone we would all be locked up separately in straitjackets in illuminated white rubber rooms spoon fed by automated feeding machines. It is a quest that cannot be done.

Second, how do you know beyond a doubt they will kill once they get one? And if they cannot – how do you know that they just won’t steal a gun from a pawn shop, the back of an law enforcement officer’s car, or from their neighbor? Or they can use poison, sharp objects, really anything. If they are set to end a life there are millions of ways to do so. Is it logical to remove the freedom of access of the entirety of the US (310 million or so people) for one of these millions of methods at the whim of public opinion and marketed agenda of corrupt public officials pressing and pushing their opinions on everyone else? Is that logical? Do we fear the gun or do we fear the criminal? Because one method out of a million is nothing and the end result is worse than the initial problem itself.

Third and last – murders will murder by any means they desire. They will circumvent laws, they can manufacture their own weapons, steal them, etc. Laws regarding possession of a weapon mean nothing to a man intent on ending another’s life. The only recourse for the victim is that of preparedness. Having a concealed weapon is both a deterrent to murders/predators and an end to their actions, if need be. As strange as it sounds putting a weapon in everyone’s hands is a better deterrent than taking the weapons out of everyone’s hands. This is because exactly as I have stated above. A murderer/criminal/whatever has a million methods to end a life and can and will break laws of possession of weapons to prey upon the unarmed, unprepared, victim.

I’m sorry, but no, the faulty logic that states we can’t restrict firearms from dangerous killers and violent people because they can use other weapons just doesn’t fly. You don’t allow a numerous DUI offender to drive just because they could steal a car, that’s asinine.

If you don’t do something to stop people from abusing firearms, society will come down on ALL OF US like a ton of bricks and we’ll end up with much worse laws and possible confiscation.

This whole “no compromise” stance will end up destroying gun ownership.

You’re assuming that the motives behind, and eventual outcome of disarming the People (therefore, the militia) are about public safety. Check the 2A again, “being necessary to the security of a free State”. It’s not an individual public safety issue and it certainly isn’t a popularity contest. If you realize that infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms is really leading to the destruction of a free State (“being NECESSARY to”), then you will realize that those calling for gun control, intentional or not, are calling for the destruction of our free nation. Once you understand this basic reality, you will understand why ‘no compromise’ makes sense. Any attempt to appease (infringe) on matters of the individual right to keep and bear arms is ONLY playing toward the destruction of your nation. “Shall not infringe” means precisely what it says because it is “necessary to the security of a free State”. It’s in plain language for all to see. No compromise if you wish to live free!

“I’m sorry, but no, the faulty logic that states we can’t restrict firearms from dangerous killers and violent people because they can use other weapons just doesn’t fly.”

Your kidding right? Are you actually asserting that if guns are not easily accessible then violent people will just… click cancel on that homicide they were planning? Yea? But firearms are banned in England:http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
How are these homicides occurring??? Can you please elaborate on your unsubstantiated assertion? If you feel my statements are flawed – please explain precisely why they are so and why yours are correct.

“You don’t allow a numerous DUI offender to drive just because they could steal a car, that’s asinine.”

Yet numerous DUI offenders are still driving. If they want to drive a car they will, regardless of its legality. Also this is not a good comparison. A DUI offender can own and drive as many cars he wants “legally” as long as they are on his private property and not on the public roads. Deciding to operate a motor vehicle is as easy as making the decision to do so. Likewise a felon that decides to carry a concealed firearm or any other weapon such as a knife, bat, syringe, etc is as easy as making the decision to do so. If he is intent on ending a life that carries with it life imprisonment or death penalty, do you think he really cares about laws regarding possession of weapons?

“If you don’t do something to stop people from abusing firearms, society will come down on ALL OF US like a ton of bricks and we’ll end up with much worse laws and possible confiscation.

This whole “no compromise” stance will end up destroying gun ownership.”

VKA, Regardless of how many die by bullets, I am of the opinion that the officials in power will target gun rights for extermination. Believe it or not, we are part of society. US… gun people. We are completely capable ourselves of lobbying and resisting anti-gun people. As an example, more people carry now more than ever. The US is on a steady decline in crime, and if we don’t like officials who don’t respect civil rights we vote them out or recall them: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/politics/guns-debate/

I’m not sure I can agree with you on this one. I got my copy in the mail yesterday. Saw the title of the article on the cover. Thought “Hmm…this might be interesting…”. Read it and thought “WTF?”. Figured it had to be some kind of counterpoint to get people fired up.

Then I looked at the front of the magazine, letters section. A reader wrote a letter complaining that G&A had done nothing to warn people about many gun control bills. Editor’s response? Some BS about timeliness (debate of the bills went on for months, they def could have mentioned it in the magazine) and the kicker- “also, please refer to Dick Metcalf’s ‘The Backstop’ article in this issue”. To me that says they agree with the crap he’s saying.

I wonder if he hangs out with Space Cadet Mark Kelley. I would love to see this punk Metcalfe go head to head with the late Col. Jeff Cooper. However, I would settle with R. Lee Ermey getting hold of him.

Going by what tfunk said above about the letters section, Metcalf might be just the kind of guy they want in G&A. All my magazine subscriptions are digital, was easy enough to cancel my guns and ammo one.

I haven’t bought a copy of G&A in years, mostly because every single article/review, like most print gun rags, is a bought and paid for advertisement for the products manufacturer. They don’t provide any good information to begin with, and it’s downright shocking that whoever runs G&A would allow this dreck to be published. Bottom line to his argument on licenses to carry is that 3 states have constitutional carry (Alaska, Vermont & Arizona) and last I checked, people aren’t shooting each other over parking spaces in those states.

One note on training. Just like the requirements of schools to teach civics and government, it should be the responsibility of the public school system to train students on the correct and safe operation of firearms. Could you imagine the outrage if kids in high school did not have classes on voting or free speech. And for all the people who use the driver license analogy, most high schools teach drivers ed.

I for one would like to see more debate on the meaning of “the people” in the text of the 2A. At the time it was written it didn’t simply mean human beings, after all, slaves weren’t allowed to buy or own guns (and non-resident aliens and aren’t allowed to now). At the time “the people” generally was interpreted as “the virtuous citizenry” or some similar concept.

To the extent regulation is justified (and SCOTUS says some is) it seems like the definition of “the people” is where the justification comes from. If you are part of “the people” you rights cannot be infringed, if you aren’t they can. If you have done something to remove yourself from the virtuous citizenry (sufficiently serious crime) or are incapable of exercising virtue due to age or mental illness a reasonable argument could be made that you are not a member of “the people”.

If this theory is accepted the next question is of course where are the lines. In the past the lines were all too often based on race, but thankfully we are past that. Instead the question is what things are sufficient to remove you from “the people”?

Should five year-olds be able to buy guns? They are people but are they “the people”? What about a person so delusional they think they are on mars and buying a ray gun? What about a convicted violent criminal just released? I suspect most people (and the founders) would agree they shouldn’t until the get older, get mental health treatment so they are operating in reality, or demonstrate a pattern of reform and good behavior (if the rights are ever to be restored). Is that a betrayal of the right, or a recognition that while the right sweeps broadly it doesn’t apply to everyone?

Fwiw, that would be consistent with a host of other rights that are limited by age or behavior/mental capacity, such as voting, jury service, or freedom of movement that can be denied based on behavior/mental capacity.

I don’t have any problem with the “waiting until you reach age of majority” as a restriction. I do have a problem with this dual-age system we have now.

It should be eighteen or it should be twenty one–for voting, drinking, gambling, and gun ownership. The fact that you’re legally responsible for yourself at eighteen but still limited in your freedoms is absurd. If we aren’t responsible enough to drink liquor or wager our own hard-earned money, we sure as **** aren’t responsible enough to make policy decisions for the entire populations through voting.

I’m not sure whether that age should be 18 or 21. I know I personally wasn’t making good decisions at 18.

And we know that some, as they get older, do not consistently make very good decisions. So by your logic, should we disenfranchise those who attain 75 years of age? Currently, New Jersey does not require those 75 years of age and older to serve as jurors. Why stop there?

I’m not arguing it isn’t an individual right. But “the people” doesn’t mean “all human beings” anywhere in the constituion, so what does it mean? That is the big one for 2A purposes. Does it mean the insane? The criminal? Children? They are all individuals, does the 2A apply to them? It well may, though it would not be inconsistent with other individual rights to say that no they don’t until such time as the defect removing them from status as one of “the people” is cured.

Children and the mentally challenged are under the care of a parent or guardian. If they are emancipated, they should have the rights of an adult. Their parents should be held responsible for what they do until they reach majority or are emancipated.

That was the common law until roughly the 1950s.

I remember when you could buy anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannon and ammunition mail order, without a permit. Crime rates were as low or lower than they are now. Those sort of guns were simply not used in crime, because they are not well suited for it.

It is one of the most chilling part of the present “debate” that we have elected officials, including the current president, demanding that the state ban weapons precisely because they might be useful in warfare “weapons of war” in spite of the fact that they are very seldom used in crime. The most clear reason for the second amendment is the have “weapons of war” available to citizens without government control.

Not every child has a familial parent or guardian, and even if they do, reading “people” to include them would be inconsistent with the guardian controlling them, after all, a guarding controlling your actions is infringing.

As for the sufficiently mentally ill, the state puts them under control of a guardian or commits them, which precludes all types of rights (free movement, privacy, voting, etc.)

Tricky Dick Metcalf and Money Bags Coonan are birds of a feather. They are both moneyed old timers who don’t like to hear people talk about their “rights.” This is the “it’s just a goddamn piece of paper” crowd.

Forget their glossy bullshit, they will sell you up the river if they think you’re too uppity.

Metcalfs beliefs have just caused him the loss of a life long customer to his publications.
As soon as Im off this page its on to whatever page I need be on to cancel any further delivery of his publications.
I cant in good faith support anything he now has his name on.

Well, I surely will never buy another copy of Guns and Ammo again. I’m done. and I’ve been purchasing this magazine for over 25 years. I hope the magazine tanks now because of this too.

Maybe he hasn’t been keeping up… but what old ‘let’s have a conversation’ Dick doesn’t realize (in his senility) is that any ‘compromise’ made with the gun grabbers is only another step towards their well-known dream of complete disarmament, and they will only then come back later (going back on their word) with a revised line of propaganda and take it yet a step further… One step at a time… until “Mr and Mrs America turn ’em all in”.

I once too had the fantastical notion that ‘hey, is there any “common sense” changes we can make that would reduce illegal gun violence?

Then I woke up.

Then I saw the bill Frankenstein proposed that would force law abiding gun owners to march into police stations and be fingerprinted like common criminals and pay a hefty tax (oh, sorry… “fee”) for private property they already paid tax on. The same bill that would basically take us back to the 1900’s with lever action rifles (as long as that feed tube isn’t tooo long now) and revolvers. The same bill that would not allow me to sell my assets in the event I ever needed to, or even pass them on to my heirs!!

Then I saw all of sheer stupidity of the people who want MORE laws just to ‘try to do something” (when everyone knows they would do nothing) tell me about ‘things that go up’ and ‘barrel shrouds’ and ‘assault weapons’ that ‘spray bullets’ and that I should just illegally discharge a shotgun in the air instead and shoot through doors and all of the other stupid crap that shows these people don’t know the first damn thing about firearms or the existing laws, but they’re just so passionate and so damn quick to tell us all about them and what we ‘have’ to do, demonstrating they don’t know the first damn thing about they are talking about as soon as they open their naive mouths.

Then I saw a ‘mandatory background check’ proposal that would have set the ground for a national gun registry and allow any other roadblock they want to add in there to deprive citizens of their right to defend themselves in the process, until a CCW ended up like a damn NFA item. All while building a database they would very easily use for their next step in the process… disarmament.

Then I saw even the term ‘common sense’ itself be so twisted and abused to delude the low information crowd into any lies the anti-gun crowd wanted to feed them.

Then I saw Bloomberg and crowd want to legislate us to the point of telling us how big of a damn soda we can drink, and all of the other lies that they fund to the tune of millions of dollars to try to delude voters into following their snobby, elitist, socialist ideology of disarmament and pacifistic conformity (all while they keep their nice fleet of armed body guards at their side). A damn Mayor of NYC paying off politicians and funding campaigns in other states to enact NY-style ‘gun control’? Trying to spread their freakin Nanny state crap to other States? Better keep that crap out of MY state.

Then I saw…
Then I saw…

The list could go on and on. How about in SF, where folks who were grandfathered in (to keep their own private property) are now going to made be criminals in less than 90 days if they don’t forfeit their private property to the state. What part about that isn’t communist again?? And I’m quite sure when that bill was passed, it was a ‘common sense compromise’ that oh… “we won’t take away your guns” ….Not yet, at least (wink, wink). We’ll just come back next time one person out of 300 million does something with a gun in our whipped up emotional state of delusion, completely disregarding any logic and come up with some new propaganda term, like ‘assault shotguns’ … or maybe we’ll say that Trayvon only died because of ‘stand your ground’ law (all while Zimmerman was pinned down on his back) and if we only got rid of that law everything would be ‘so much safer’… cause after all, ‘no one should be allowed to just gun anyone down they want for any reason, right’?

I’m a long time G&A reader and, these days, viewer, and have always enjoyed your work, having learned much in the process. What a surprise it was, then, to read your “Backstop” article entitled “Let’s Talk Limits.” See, I’ve just published a book on the topic of gun politics called “Knowing Guns: The Ins and Outs of Firearms and Firearm Politics for the Uninitiated.” My target audience are those who are uninformed on the topic, or may even be dead set against guns, but are open to learning the facts. And one of the basic facts I open the book with is the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Given your background, you well know that the amendment covers two mutually overlapping issues: the need for the state to have a militia in order to be secure, and the needs of the People to be armed, which is what COMPOSES a militia. Traditional understanding of how 2A was understood to work is revealed by their state constitution equivalents. My state of Michigan is possibly the most clear and concise: “Every person has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” No excess terms to cloud the meaning.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happened when you refer to “well regulated” in the context of firearms! See, the definition has taken on new meaning over the years. Think of the many words today that had very different meanings back then. (Few people talk of “feeling gay” anymore!) In 2A, “well regulated” refers to the militia itself, not firearms. See, the militia is traditionally defined as non-professional volunteer citizen-soldiers. Our “Minutemen” were ordinary citizens — farmers, shop keepers, blacksmiths, etc. — who, like today’s volunteer fire departments, could be “called up” during an emergency, often bringing their own weapons and ammunition. This, in fact, was the vision our founders had: a militia as opposed to a standing army.

Armies require training in order to be “in good working order,” and this just happens to be the active definition of “well regulated” in use at the time. Naturally, nobody expects farmers to understand the intricacies of military tactics, so there was always the expectation that some training (regulation) would be needed once said militia was “called up.” Also, it was NEVER expected that said militia would maintain combat readiness (regulation) at all times! Because a soldier’s training is so intense, Alexander Hamilton warned that such a requirement would be the very definition of tyranny, requiring several hours a day to achieve!

So, bottom line: any of our rights enumerated in the Constitution do indeed carry responsibilities; your rights to free speech do not include slander, libel or plagiarism, and the same could be said of a free press. Yet “shall not be infringed” is very strong language, implying that anyone taking up their rights are themselves responsible to seek out adequate training and act within the law, and the government cannot bar them from this by ANY means. “Shall not” doesn’t have an asterisk; there is no “except for” amended to it.

Let’s get pragmatic/practical here for a moment as well. What we’re discussing here are rules governing the LAW ABIDING. Illinois’ 16-hour training requirements will ONLY impact those of us who follow the law. No gang member, drug dealer or pimp is going to sit through 16 hours of anything. And, as you say, it’s not the length of time that’s important, but the quality of the class content. If we look around the various states, few have requirements anywhere NEAR 16 hours! Why is Illinois different? I see such anomalies as evidence of “politricks.” It’s a high burden to ask an average working person to take two whole days away from their lives, and perhaps jobs, to obtain a permit for what should be considered a basic civil right. (“…not be infringed.”) To gun ban fans and hoplophobes, it’s a means to discourage. Is that the side you want to be on? This isn’t conjecture; both the state and the City of Chicago has fought the entire movement tooth and nail. They’ve used every delay tactic they can and want to do more. Sadly, your article has now given them just one more piece of ammo they can use to argue that “even gun owners and authorities agree” that more regulation is a good thing.

We need a united front here. Since the facts are on our side, I’m not even asking for any sort of spin, obfuscation or historical rewrite. We just need to KNOW those facts and stick to them. I respectfully suggest that a correction might be in order.

What is this guy, living in a cave? As said, “well-regulated” did not at all have the meaning it does today. In addition, who determines what are “adequate” laws? And WHAT THE HELL kind of reasoning is it that a the general public has any authority to force a person to undergo training to exercise a “RIGHT?”

That’s like saying that one has a right to engage in free speech, but first must undergo training to ensure that they are knowledgeable enough to comment on the subject.

And does anyone really believe that driver’s licenses “train” people to drive? Most people learn to drive just by doing it. Driver’s licenses are useless in that sense. If people actually had to pass a TRUE driver’s qualification and had to be TRULY trained how to drive, we’d have far fewer drivers, and that is probably how it would be with the leftists except that then society wouldn’t be able to function.

“Illinois’ new carry law—mandating that citizens must complete 16 hours of training to “earn” the right to bear arms— is not “infringement in and of itself.”
If the time ever comes that no elderly person or young kid or young widow with an infant or anyone uses a gun for self dense, maybe we can talk or NOT. What a jerk!

I guess G&A needed traffic to their sites and some exposure..I can’t remember the last time they were in the news with anything, and what better way to think you are relevant than by having a longtime and trusted (by some) writer troll all the supporters of the Constitution in one article. I say troll, because I can’t believe he really believes this. These quotes from the article..seriously?..Regulated..you thinks it means regulated by the idiots in Congress?n WTF Metcalf..
Why does it seems to me that J Guthrie just rolled in his grave..? He seemed like such a much smarter writer and stronger supporter of the Constitution..and something tells me he would have disagreed with Metcalf to the point of recoiling back with a look of disgust and “WTF?”

It seems someone wanted to divide the pro-gun community..this would be a great way to try..

“See the sensible gun owners who believe in common sense gun laws…and see the big bad crazy racist NRA who wants to give guns to terrorist and criminals at gun shows to kill children and puppies..”..
Gag an F’ing maggot…Thanks Metcalf, you just helped in the fight to take away the Rights of the American People away from them..and once they take the 2nd, the rest will fall right behind.

I hate that “yell Fire” analogy because it still doesn’t work in their favor. Yelling Fire is protected under the second amendment. But if in doing so it incite panic and people get hurt, then i’m responsible for the people that got hurt.

Same goes for a firearm, having a firearm in a movie theater shouldn’t be illegal. But if i pull it out and shoot someone, or it accidentally goes off in my pants, then i’m responsible for the people that get hurt. So i don’t see the point of their analogy???

Same goes for the child pornography analogy. Pornography is protected, but having sex with children is not. Therefore making child porn is illegal and it gets confiscated. Having a gun is protected, but shooting innocent people is not, therefore they get confiscated when you do illegal things with them. I don’t see the gun grabbers analogy working.

If the Schenck case had anything to do with crowded theaters or shouting “fire,” then the holding would have made sense.

The defendant in Schenck was distributing leaflets urging Americans to resist the draft. The Court ruled, in effect, that disagreement and dissent were crimes. The case was overruled sub silentio by Brandenberg.

The fact remains that government — any government — will always view dissent and disagreement as treason and will always try to suppress it by any means necessary. The suppression may be violent, or it may involve the IRS.

Likewise, government will always view an armed populace as a threat and will try to suppress it by any means necessary.

I subscribe to almost all of the magazines that Intermedia outdoors puts out. I will be calling them on Monday to give them notice. Either retract the article and fire Mr. Metclaff, or I’ll won’t be renewing any of my subscriptions. Simple as that.

Must be terrible to have to read a single opposing opinion instead of listening to an echo chamber. You must all be so traumatized.

Hey, it’s your money, but one would think the idea of a constitutionist would be to write an article refuting his views instead of trying to destroy the magazine that gave him the opportunity to express it…

As you (probably) know, TTAG republishes press releases from anti-gun groups. The readers of this site are not afraid to confront contrary opinions. The source of their discomfort: Mr. Metcalf’s anti-2a opinion appearing in Guns & Ammo.

The problem though is that a person and a magazine who are supposed to be long-time supporters of gun rights go publishing something that shows utter ignorance of the subject and is only ammunition for the anti-gun crowd.

If the New York Times had a writer publish an article saying it was Constitutionally okay for the federal government to restrict free speech in certain ways, such as by requiring one to have a special license or permit to engage in said speech, and there was an uproar of a response, do you think that it would be viewed as people just not being able to handle a different opinion?

Hannibal, the counterpoint to Metcalf’s piece, which presents an uninformed echo of past anti-firearms views, has already been written and published. It took the form of an opinion published by the U.S. Supreme Court during its October Term, 2007. Metcalf apparently does not think that the Supreme Court’s parsing of Amendment II should be the law of the land, and wishes to drag us back toward imputing a 20th century definition of ‘regulated’ into the amendment. It certainly means either that Metcalf either never read Heller, or has forgotten its content. Either is a mark of incompetence, given that the case is the most significant ruling governing the matter of Metcalf’s profession, Guns & Ammo. It is certainly possible to argue for a different interpretation, but to do so without showing any awareness of the Court’s current position is inexcusable. If he actually did have the Court’s current view in mind when he wrote, then his position is utterly absurd.

I am a subscriber to Handguns, G&A, Shotgun News and Rifle Shooter magazines. Mr. Metcalf’s recent G&A editorial just blows my mind in it’s support for government sponsored gun control. Maybe Mr. Metcalf stopped reading the 2nd Amendment before it got that part about “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

I’ll be awaiting a very public response from Intermedia Outdoors next week. Particularly, I would like to hear that this editorial does not stand in line with the company’s views on gun ownership and that Mr. Metcalf is no longer employed by Intermedia Outdoors.

If the response is slow or if there is even a hint that Mr. Metcalf won’t be held responsible for his pro gun control statements, I will be canceling all of my subscriptions. I speak not only for myself, but my family and friends.

“I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment.”

Well that does sound like a bit of a challenge. Would me saying, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but Metcalf obviously doesn’t,” count as an exception?

All kidding aside (clearly that “but” only ruins it when it refers to your own belief, not someone else’s), it’s the most black-and-white phrasing in the bill of rights; it’s not limited to Congress not passing a law (as is the First), so an argument can be made it applied to the states the instant it was ratified. It goes so far as to say “shall not be infringed” and… well, I am preaching to the choir here. I’ll add, rather unnecessarily that even if “regulated” meant what they think it means (cue Inigo Montoya, saying, “That word… I do not think it means what you think it means” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE), it’s clearly the militia that is to be regulated not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. [And what part of “shall not be infringed” do they fail to understand? Clearly it’s the word “not” that they do “not” understand.]

I am curious WHY Metcalf and the Editors did this? What were they trying to accomplish?

As I posted elsewhere here is how I cancelled: How do I end my subscription?

To cancel your subscription, please call 800-829-3340 or Send a Comment to our Customer Service Department through the Manage Your Account area of the Customer Service site. You may also write to us at Guns & Ammo, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235 .

For international orders please call 386-246-3326.

A refund will be issued for any un-served issues of your subscription.

The issue with taking the “shall not be infringed” argument to this extent is the fact that you cannot simultaneously say that there should be no restrictions of any kind, and then say that convicted felons should not be able to get guns. Convicted murderers should not be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun, that much seems like a pretty universal belief. So, how do you go about preventing that? Frankly, I have yet to come across any workable alternative to a background check. The store owner needs to be able to ascertain, using reasonable measures, whether or not the person across the counter has a criminal record. In order to do that they have to run a background check on every buyer. There is no viable way around that.

It has never worked to try to prevent criminals from buying guns by restricting law abiding citizens from buying guns, such as with “background checks”. You are swimming against the tide because 99.9 percent of your effort is used to check people who are not criminals.

What does work is enforcement to make sure that criminals do not *posess* firearms. David Kennedy shows how it is done. People who become murderers are a very, very small subset of the population. Once they are identitifed (most are readily known by their previous violent acts), monitor them closely so that they behave or stay locked up.

This is a far more sane and effective approach than regulating everyone in a futile attempt to prevent a few from gaining access to arms.

What I am getting from both of your responses is that we should a) basically prevent any violent felon from ever re-entering society or b) give up because it’s hopeless. First, assuming that someone who is once a criminal will always have to remain a criminal is fundamentally opposed to the concept of our justice system. At its core, the intent is to punish an individual for their crimes and to (hopefully) rehabilitate where possible. Against all odds, some criminals are rehabilitated, for a variety of reasons and through numerous paths. Monitoring criminals 24/7 will absolutely result in de facto life sentences for felons. Not to mention the cost for anything approaching effective would be astronomically expensive. Think Medicare-level dollars. No one wants to pay for that. Second, just giving up can’t possibly be an option. If you do that, I guarantee the right to keep and bear the arms that you want (read anything above a bolt-action rifle) will be gone. As soon as a criminal can walk into a store and buy a firearm without a problem, every gun owner will get tarred with the same brush. In addition, I don’t think making it that much easier for criminals to get firearms is going to win us any friends with the voting public, which by the way we desperately need if we want to keep our rights. It’s very difficult to convince people that gun owners are reasonable people when you are arguing we shouldn’t bother trying (maybe not succeeding, but at least trying) to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The problem with “trying” is that Prohibition doesn’t work. Never has, never will, unless it’s on something just economically unfeasible. (This is why it’s easy to “prohibit” nuclear weapons {due to their cost}, but not firearms.)

How about the oft-refered-to option of: Set reasonable, standard punishments for criminals. When prison/punishment time is over, they get ALL rights restored. If they are too violent to be trusted with a weapon, they can’t be trusted to be loosed upon the public. Get rid of all the stupid invented crimes like drug possession/use/sale and consenting adult prostitution. Stop making more “criminals” than we can deal with, and keep the truly dangerous ones away from society.

Something you appear to be missing entirely is the concept of an individual’s responsibility for their own safety. Legal impediments to self defense need to be removed. Peace officers and prosecutors, along with judges, should be statutorily required to consider self defense to be prima facie unless evidence clearly indicates otherwise. A free and moral society can handle it without sacrificing as much individual liberty as we see today. Government is notoriously ineffective and inefficient compared to a prepared society. Also, remove many of the ‘non-crimes’ and government over-step criminal laws on the books today and there will be plenty of prison space for the murderers, rapists, arsonists, and thieves. (Hell, just wall off DC and you’ve imprisoned a bunch right there! just joking… sort of)

If a ‘convicted killer’ wishes to obtain a firearm I would have to ask, for what purpose? If the intent is to use it in some legitimate way that doesn’t cause harm to the innocent then I don’t see what the problem is, work, make money, buy a gun just like everyone else.

However, if a ‘convicted killer’ wishers to obtain a firearm for some nefarious purpose, perhaps a second murder, I find it unlikely that such a person has any strenuous objection to theft or robbery either. This suggests that rather than obtaining money and purchasing a firearm such a person would obtain one via burglary. This isn’t, I think, any more true because such a person cannot legitimately buy a gun but rather because it isn’t in their nature or habit to act within the law in the first place, thus making theft the path of least resistance and the first choice for obtaining a firearm.

While it seems on the surface that we ought to do something to protect ourselves from the specter of a killer with a gun, laws that making it illegal to commit murder, for a felon to possess a firearm, for anyone to possess a firearm with criminal intent or reason or any other law conceivable are ineffective to this end. This is because laws assign punishment for crimes one is convicted of and are not a means of preventing such crimes from occurring in the first place.

What is effective in preventing murders from murdering is to always be properly prepared to resist a lethal attack with appropriate lethal response; that is, have a gun and no how to use it. Laws and punishments are not a very effective deterrent to crime because of the basic nature of criminality. The immediate threat of being killed as a result of committing a crime is a major deterrent to all but the insane or suicidal. Further, when deterrence, whether from laws or the immediate threat of death fails actually inflicting incapacitating injury still prevents the crime and death ensures that the individual responsible will never kill again.

The subset of the population willing to murder is so extremely low that it’s arguably safe to issue a firearm for permanent and constant use to every person in the population. Were this to be done the violent crime rate would drop off to statistical irrelevancy in a rather short period of time as the few who were still willing to attempt murder in the knowledge that any victim they choose will be armed to resist would experience a die off to the level of extinction. Though they may prevail in murdering several people first inevitably they themselves would be killed eventually. After this short period of increased violence the only people left would be those who avoided violent conflict and the over all result would be an increase in safety and civility.

While on the surface such a policy may seem grisly it is the answer to your question; the degree to which more people are armed more often, across the board and regardless of their intentions, the safer we all are collectively and if one of the armed also individually. The greatest level of safety from violent crime is universal and constant armament of as many people as possible, counterintuitive perhaps, but it is the solution to the ‘who should have guns’ problem.

“The issue with taking the “shall not be infringed” argument to this extent is the fact that you cannot simultaneously say that there should be no restrictions of any kind, and then say that convicted felons should not be able to get guns. ”

It’s no different than the NRA. Search YouTube for Wayne LaPierre praising Harry Reid! Hopefully you will all eventually see that these corporations are capitalizing off of “opposition”. For example, if you research enough, you will see many links between “big oil” and “Green Peace”.

Back in the ’80’s, when it was my favorite gun mag, G&A had a column called RKBA that was always heavy on facts, in the anti’s faces and took no prisoners. Their entire editorial slant seemed to be sneaking in a pro-gun idea in almost every article. By the mid-’90’s, though, something had subtly changed. I just kept ignoring their offers to renew. Occasional looks in the last decade at newsstands revealed a near abandonment of RKBA and no sign of the feisty attitude of the ’80’s. So I’m not surprised, but I am saddened by this latest peccadillo.

Dick had long been irrelevant to the competent writer and SME pool. Ever watch the G&A TV show? I almost cringe watching segments he’s in, and it’s obvious he’s trying to play up to the modern shooter that he is definitely not a part of.

I think ill read the article myself to see if i agree with him and will renew my subscription immediately. We need regulations badly, too many mass shootings done by people who were law abiding citizens the day before.

We have over 20,000 gun laws in this country, all of which were promised to stop the crimes you speak of. How many more do you think it’s going to take to finally get what we have been falsely promised for so long? 1? 100? 20,000 more?

I noticed in some above comments, people commenting on what constitutes an arm. I would say that arms are weapons for individual human-to-human combat and warfare. They are most definitely weapons of war, but one class of weapons of war. Other weapons of war are things like the Stuxnet computer virus, nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, battle tanks, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers, and so forth. But I would not view any of these as arms.

One thing to remember is that biological weapons are nothing new. Using disease as a weapon against one’s enemies goes back hundreds of years, maybe more. It is theorized even that the Black Plague in Europe that wiped out so much of the population was due to the Mongols using plague-infested corpses as biological weapons.

The practice of tossing plague-infested corpses and/or the rotting carcass of a cow over the walls of cities under siege goes back long before the 20th century. But I do not think that people like Aristotle to the Founding Fathers meant you have a right to keep plague-infested corpses or rotting animal carcasses in your home.

Are plague-infested corpses and rotting animal carcasses weapons of war? Absolutely. But they are not arms.

In terms of how the people possessing arms serves as a check on the State, it is the sheer numbers. The State will always have superior weapons and superior-trained soldiers. But they do not have the numbers of the people, and that creates a problem for any dictator.

Look at all the trouble Assad for example had before he got outside help. Or how it is considered nuts for the U.S. to try invading Iran (we didn’t really have enough manpower to invade Iraq even the way we should have), but yet, the antis argue that if a dictatorship formed in America, the military would crush the American people. The truth is the dictatorship would have a huge amount of trouble trying to establish any kind of control over America. You’d be dealing with a country geographically larger than Iran, with over four times the population of Iran, and much more heavily-armed at that.

That is how the people’s possessing arms serves as an ultimate check on the power of the State.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you and I’m commenting on the last two paragraphs of your post. I cannot help but think of the rise of the Soviet Union. That was a lot of country. We’re losing the deterrent value of the Second Amendment and generations of children are growing up indoctrinated towards accepting government infringement and the police state. On our present course, I believe it to only be a matter of time before the United States of America is conquered from within. A man lives only one lifetime but a government many. Time is on a government’s side. The deterrent aspect of the 2A must be revived and our young must be raised on the values of morality and liberty.

As a merchant and owner of ships used to transport goods, John Hancock owned cannon, shot and powder to defend those ships and the goods they transported against the real threat of pirates. What do you think his opinion was of what is stated in the Second Amendment?

The Marsk lines should take a lesson from John Hancock. Additionally, when the British troops went to collect arms and munitions at Lexington and Concord. They also had orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock. Both men slipped away to make it to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The shooting war started in April 1775 due to weapons confiscation. I think that also indicates what his and Sam Adams opinions were as well.

One gun magazine that seems to be very pro-2nd Amendment (though I could be mistaken) is SWAT magazine. They used that have the phrase, “Special Weapons and Tactics,” but not it is, “Survival Weapons and Tactics,” and they have an article in the current issue about military arms throughout history that have been held by civilians.

RECOIL I am giving a second chance as they seem to be pro-gun rights now.

None of this matters to anyone living anywhere except the big cities. That’s the only place where a thermonuclear device or an anthrax test tube or a machine gun would be considered a weapon of mass destruction. LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY. Stop infringing on our right to be armed. That includes onerous registrations and training requirements and outrageous 9 month wait times for the ATF to infringe on our right to own suppressed hunting rifles. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT NOW. There are NO reasons to infringe except to coddle people living in the big cities. WTF do I care if a suitcase nuke goes off in Miami harbor? How exactly is that going to affect me in Gunbarrel City Texas? If Washington cannot stop its incessant infringment on our rights, then Texas will just secede.

Your interpretation needs work. “Well regulated” was a popular term at the time the BOR was written. It is in many dictionaries of the time and means “Properly functioning” or “In proper working order.”

The militia in the 2A is defined by US Code as pretty much everyone, not separate from the general population:

The discussion needs to be limited to the misuse of firearms, not their
possession. To the extent that possession is relevant, it is because identifiable
classes of people are prone to misuse guns. This is a statistical matter, not one of emotion or “common sense.” Can we statistically expect that 50% or more of the individuals in a suspect class will commit a crime with a gun over a given period? This view is abused by the status quo, which usually uses the quick-and-dirty definition of a felony as any crime that might have resulted an a year’s imprisonment even if no jail time was actually served. Thus, it treats someone who got 6 months probation 30 years ago for kiting a check with someone who was just released after his second armed robbery conviction. This is not common sense.

Also, we must realize that we have enemies. They are bigots who will misinterpret and spin any statement we make on the controversy. By regarding the privilege of driving a car as reflecting the same “basic principle” as a constitutional right, Metcalf is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, pp 23-24:
“Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).”
This ‘imposition’ could only apply, of course, to the organized portion of the militia that Congress has the power to call up, and could not be construed to infringe upon or hold in abeyance the natural right to keep and bear arms, itself.

One of the reasons many people think the “People of the Gun” are wackos (which damages your message) relates to the strident worldview that allows for zero nuance. The claim that the second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms with no qualification or limitation whatsoever leads to absurd results. It means that convicted violent criminals, upon release from prison, can keep and bear arms. It means that people suffering from serious mental disorders can keep and bear arms. It means that 16 year-olds can buy guns. NO – none of this should happen. And it’s not enough to say that the justice system will clean things up after the fact. I want to live in a society that takes reasonable precautions to keep people safe — not one that reacts post facto.

An absolutist reading of any set of laws is a threat to any free society. Take just part of the first amendment as an example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Ok, it clearly says “shall make no law.” Zero. Unambiguous, right? So why is polygamy illegal? It was a central tenet of Mormonism until the religion abandoned the practice for pragmatic reasons. Do the “People of the Gun” extend their second amendment logic of absolutism to the first amendment and believe that polygamy should be legal? What about ritual sacrifice? Oh, is it because Mormonism wasn’t around when the founders wrote the Bill of Rights, that they couldn’t have foreseen a future with so much religious pluralism that an absolute ban on legislation respecting free exercise of religion would be unwise?

I own three guns and have a CCW permit. I have no problem with background checks or even a 48 hour waiting period. I have no problem with limited and reasonable regulation of guns. The Constitution must be interpreted in light of our current reality, which is what the Supreme Court has been doing for more than two centuries.

“The Constitution must be interpreted in light of our current reality, which is what the Supreme Court has been doing for more than two centuries.”

BZZZZZZZZZZT!! Wrong!

The Constitution is to be “interpreted” as it was intended when written, and amended if such provisions no longer apply today. Which has been done 27 times with only one mistake. If you think it needs to be changed, then Article V awaits you, have at it. Until then, it actually means what it says and what was originally intended. Not what lawyers with agendas want it to mean by decree.

It’s just not that simple PavePusher. The Constitution is limited in words and explanation. The founders didn’t define “unreasonable” in the 4th amendment any more than they defined “militia” or “infringed” in the 2nd. So how do we know what terms mean? Yes, we look for their original intent. Of course. But we can’t ignore modernity as we try to make a relevant and contemporary understanding, as their intent was necessarily a function of their reality in the late 1700s. For example, there was no infrared technology in 1791. Now there is. What does that mean for the 4th amendment? Likewise, our armed forces in 1791 were nothing like today. What’s a militia? Is that the modern day national guard?

“It means that convicted violent criminals, upon release from prison, can keep and bear arms.”

Yes, that is what it means.
————-
“It means that people suffering from serious mental disorders can keep and bear arms.”

If they are legally considered competent then that is what it means. A person who is suffering from any malady that renders them incompetent is very much in the same position as those individuals who are below the legal age of majority.
————-
“It means that 16 year-olds can buy guns.”

Not necessarily. If the individual is under the legal age of majority then that individual essentially exercises their rights under the conservatorship of their guardian. Prior to age of majority, an individual is considered incompetent.
————-
‘NO – none of this should happen.’

That is your opinion and it is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Your opinion is based in fear and a desire to delegate more of your own individual sovereignty for some personal perception of increased safety**. Fortunately, the contract through which the People agreed to be governed doesn’t allow for your fears and desires to dictate the terms for me. Your options are a constitutional amendment or to move.

(**I am NOT part of the ‘sovereign citizen movement’… the term “sovereignty” is properly used in the context of my comment.)
————-
“I want to live in a society that takes reasonable precautions to keep people safe — not one that reacts post facto.”

Then this country isn’t the one for you. A constitutional amendment is what’s required to live here under the terms that you desire.
————-
“Ok, it clearly says “shall make no law.” Zero. Unambiguous, right? So why is polygamy illegal?”

Yep, polygamy is not covered under the power vested in the federal government to restrict. The federal government hasn’t legitimate power to make laws outlawing polygamy. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.
————-
“What about ritual sacrifice?”

Ritual sacrifice falls under murder which is obviously already a crime as it is an individual or group violating the natural rights of another in an extreme and final manner.
————-
“I own three guns and have a CCW permit. I have no problem with background checks or even a 48 hour waiting period.”

A license to carry a sidearm is a privilege and is NOT exercising the right to keep and bear arms. A right requires no license or permission from government. So, your reference to a CCW permit doesn’t have anything to do with the Second Amendment except that it can be argued that it is an infringement if regulated by the federal government.
————-
“I have no problem with limited and reasonable regulation of guns. The Constitution must be interpreted in light of our current reality, which is what the Supreme Court has been doing for more than two centuries.”

Again, you’re living in the wrong nation under the wrong constitution then. In order to have what you want, an amendment or your voluntary relocation is in order.

Also, Judicial Review is very debatable. It came about through an improper power grab by the Supreme Court. The Court set itself up as an independent branch of government lacking oversight and with broad and dangerous powers.

Thank you John. I often follow your comments and the concise and authoritative nature of them makes me proud that we share a state. My only complaint is purely selfish: Sometimes (as here) I read something and before I even finish it I’m in a fervor of indignation with rebuttals forming themselves and I begin to feel a perverse joy at the response I’m going to write. . . only to find that you have said what I was thinking and usually more eloquently than I would have said it. That is, your thoughts are so aligned with mine that you often make every single point I was going to make and likely as not a few I hadn’t thought of. In other words you’re winning at the internet and steeling my joy!

I console myself with the knowledge that there are people like you around, right thinking, well spoken and ardent defenders of the RKBA, so thanks, I guess. 🙂

Thank you for the kind words, Ardent. I can say the same about your comments! However, it’s not selfishness in my case. It’s laziness! lol If someone else makes the point well that I was intending then that’s one less comment I have to write.

If you’ve been to rallies/demonstrations/etc in Ohio then we probably have met IRL. Ditto on consolation… it ‘recharges my batteries’ seeing others articulate the concepts of Liberty as you do so very well. Thank you and carry on!

It may be that we have met. I’m not as active as I would like to be and generally confine my activities to supporting others who are more active in the fight for liberty. However I am becoming increasingly active as time goes on simply because I see a real need.

I’m in the south eastern part of the state and can often be found loitering in guns shops or prowling local ranges. You can reach me at hoplophile76@hotmail.com should you ever want or need to, and certainly if you’ll be in this part of the state we could set up a meet and shoot sort of thing. I’ll introduce you to the activists in our local community, a pretty good bunch.

I wrote: “I want to live in a society that takes reasonable precautions to keep people safe — not one that reacts post facto.”

You wrote: “Then this country isn’t the one for you. A constitutional amendment is what’s required to live here under the terms that you desire.”

I first want to thank you for a respectful response. I support civil debate and not self righteous indignation, which is present in many comments throughout this blog.

Second, to your response…do you mean to suggest that our country should take no reasonable precautions to keep people safe in general, or just as it relates to guns? Clearly a basic function of government, as laid out in the constitution, is to promote the general welfare and keep people safe. I understand the role gun rights plays in that. But might gun rights and general welfare — both constitutional ideals — come into conflict? If so, then what?

There’s one part of your response that I really don’t understand. Are you saying a CCW is a privilege and not a right? In other words, no one has an absolute right to concealed carry and the government can regulate that?

You’re welcome. I get crabby and cross at times both online and in person. However, deep down I recognize that other individuals posses their own opinions and points of view. Not being of divine nature, I cannot absolutely discern if I am more correct than they, they moreso than me, or both being essentially a wash. Human beings are complex as much goes into one’s thinking. The product of that thinking isn’t often cut and dried; necessarily right or wrong, rather, usually shades of a spectrum. However, when it comes to our Constitution, the nature of the document and the history behind it leads me to err on the side of strict interpretation of the plain language. To do otherwise appears to foster a fragmented society leading to civil unrest or revolution. At least, that’s my take on the big picture.
————-
“do you mean to suggest that our country should take no reasonable precautions to keep people safe in general, or just as it relates to guns?”

Government should not undertake any privilege of power beyond that which is specifically conferred by a constitution.
——-
“Clearly a basic function of government, as laid out in the constitution, is to promote the general welfare and keep people safe. I understand the role gun rights plays in that. But might gun rights and general welfare — both constitutional ideals — come into conflict? If so, then what?”

Although I dispute the propriety of Judicial Review, even the Supreme Court has held that the preamble to the Constitution cannot be used or interpreted to create new powers. Only those privileges specifically extended to the government ought be claimed by a legitimate government. Instead of usurping power, our government should be seeking proper expansion of power through the amendment process; one of the original forces favoring a constitution over articles of confederation. Government has the amendment process at its disposal… it is really the only legitimate way for it to expand its authority.
————-
“There’s one part of your response that I really don’t understand. Are you saying a CCW is a privilege and not a right? In other words, no one has an absolute right to concealed carry and the government can regulate that?”

Although I favor open carry, I do wholeheartedly support constitutional carry, openly or concealed. When one carries on the authority of a license or other permit, one has accepted a privilege in lieu of exercising a right. When carrying openly, I am exercising my right to keep and bear arms. When I carry concealed without a license, I am exercising my right to keep and bear arms. When I carry concealed under the auspices of a license, I am exercising a privilege extended to me by government; not exercising a right. Put another way, when I engage in activity, permission for such engagement thereof being conferred by government authority, I’m exercising a privilege. Driving under a license is exercising a privilege, not exercising the right to travel. Carrying a sidearm as a peace officer or private investigator is exercising a privilege, not exercising the right to keep and bear arms. There are many private and professional privileges that are exercised by individuals and groups each day that would, at other times, be considered the exercise of rights if done so by the individual.

Well put. I believe that some individuals don’t understand or don’t want to accept the individual responsibilities and risks that are inseparable from individual Liberty. As with the statements of anti-gunners, those individuals can sometimes be identified when they make statement such as: “I believe in the RKBA but…”, “They’re going to ruin it for the rest of us!”, “Concealed means concealed!”, etc. If a person wants to be truly free then he had better understand what freedom really entails. It’s not something with which an individual can ‘have their cake and eat it too’. If a person wishes for freedom then they simply must accept that there will be individual responsibilities and individual risks. Nobody can bear those for them no matter how much they might wish for it to be so. Perhaps some are simply too afraid to be free?

Too afraid to be free might very well describe a good portion of the anti liberty crowd. It’s not posturing but a real and actual feeling that they are happier and better off as subjects who are protected by the government rather than free citizens with responsibilities of their own. They are too short sighted to sense the danger of becoming subjects of a despotic dictator or even actually enslaved. They are too complacent to consider that they might be better off providing for their individual or the collective defense and further more don’t feel as if they are up to the task in the first place.

In fact, for a great number of people the act of thinking independently almost seems to be punitively painful.

They will make every attempt possible to avoid having to think because by extension if they think for themselves they may be compelled to act for themselves and they are so afraid of that as to avoid it even at the cost of their liberty.

They lack the conviction or the courage to take on responsibilities because with those come risks and they are risk adverse to their own extreme detriment.

I believe (and this is way out in the theoretical) that it all stems from a complete lack of willingness to risk life for any ends whatsoever. Their arrogant belief in their own innate value informs them that they must not die of anything ever and thus makes the contemplation of dying an impossible conundrum since it would be unconscionably tragic if they died. Never mind the fact that on a long enough timeline all of our chances for survival are reduced to zero, they simply can’t allow in their own minds the concept that they must eventually die.

On the reverse of this are those of us who have contemplated the reality of our own demise, accepted it and have set out taking positive measures to avoid an untimely death. However, at the same time this acceptance of the reality of our eventual demise allows us to consider rationally what circumstances under which we are willing to risk our lives. Cops and soldiers ought to be able to inform us about the realities of voluntarily putting ones self in harms way. It’s this very act, performed unselfishly that we properly call heroic. The opposite of heroic is cowardly and thus those who would never voluntarily risk their lives for anything are properly called cowards.

This is the enemy we face; a herd of arrogant, self important cowards who actually believe that their feelings trump your rights.

I’m sick of hearing the same two uninformed statements which have completely clear explainations:

1. That the “well regulated” in “well regulated militia” in the 2nd amendment means “controlled by policy or authority”. It meant “well equipped” when it was written, ratified, and still does today, regardless of how language use as changed around it. It meant then that the government shall not control by policy or authority the bearing of arms SO the militia shall remain “well equipped”.

Here’s my rewrite of the 2nd Amendment in today’s language:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because we recognize that a well-armed population, able to self-organize into an effective and independent fighting force, is necessary to permanently ensure the freedom and security of the People and the State.”

2. That your right to yell fire in a crowded theater is infringed. No it isn’t. If you do so and people panic and trample each other and the fire company comes out and the facility loses money, then you can be punished for THOSE consequences that you directly induced. You can be punished for the direct results of your speech, not FOR the speech. The whole point of this parable is that just because certain freedoms are protected, doesn’t mean that you are immune to the consequences of your exercise of them. Actual consequences, not hypothetical ones! It’s actually a good parable for gun rights proponents.

Due to Dick Metcalf’s recent editorial paying lip service to the 2nd Amendment while ignorantly regurgitating the anti-liberty talking points (such as the “fire in a crowded theater fallacy), I will not be renewing my G&A subscription (via Magazines.com).

I can only say that I’m very disappointed at this PATHETIC editorial. The enemy is among us at G&A.

I was stunned by the utter ignorance (about the Constitution) displayed by the author who claims to have taught college seminars on Constitutional History. In this article, he regurgitates the fallacious talking points of the anti-liberty faction. The pathetic, tired, and utterly ignorant claim that we can’t “yell fire in a theater” is cliché at this point. Just so you know… You CAN yell “fire” and anything else in a theater. You will be responsible for any negative consequences of doing so. But, your assertion that you can’t is completely false. That’s called “prior restraint.” And, it’s not Constitutional.

The example, “anti-you crowd on your front lawn,” is also vacuous. Constitutionally-protected rights do not apply on private property. You can’t gather on my front lawn simply because I don’t want you there. It has nothing to do with the “regulation” of 1st Amendment rights.

The “sacrificing of humans” as religion delves even deeper into pathetic arguments to the point of being a Straw Man.

The regurgitated talking point about the phrase “well-regulated” shows a profound ignorance. An accomplished author should vet his “facts” before putting them to print with his name on them.

Then the author falls back on the other clichéd “drivers license” argument. Holy cow.

I could go on deconstructing nearly every claim in this article, but I’ve wasted enough time already. I surely won’t waste any more time reading Guns & Ammo.

Metcalf is a technical writer not an attorney or a constitutional expert. You have the right and the ability to yell fire in a crowded theater. However, if you have the poor judgement to abuse that right, you have the responsibility to accept the consequences and punishement for your rash actions.

If “Well Regulated” means you can make rules controlling or limiting the 2nd Amendment, instead of “well organized and well trained” as anyone who has studied history and the language of the time period knows, then why did the founding fathers start the Amendment with “Well Regulated” and finish it with “Shall Not Be Infringed”. They would seem to contradict themselves. The simple answer is they didn’t mean for it to be controlled or regulated. If it’s an arm, meaning can be carried by a person, it can not be infringed. I can understand rules on where you can discharge said arms. You can’t target shoot your .30-06 on a quarter acre of property in the city…rules preventing infringement on others safety is one thing. But if I’ve never demonstrated a threat to someone else’s safety, I should be able to own what I want…so long as I use them in a manner that is considered safe meaning I use them at the range, while hunting(fair weapon for hunting of course), or Heaven forbid, in defense of myself or my family or my home.

Go ahead and bite the hands that feed you…You will go the way of so many mags…Out the door and watch your scripts fall away. I would suggest you read the Constitution of the United States Of American and pay special attention to the 2nd Amendment……

Actually it does not matter even if “well regulated” means “highly controlled by the govt.”

I am convinced that Penn of Penn and Teller has the 2nd figured out correctly, and he says something like the “well-regulated militia” is actually referring to the US Govt’s Military (what would today be the Army).

We need this militia because it is necessary for the security of our country to have a real defense.

But since we just fought this war against our former govt’s army, we have some concern that we could be oppressed in the future. And so, the right of the people, meaning regular people, not people in the well-regulated militia, also need guns.

At this time in America’s history there can be no daylight between Constitutionalists on any part of the Founding Documents
Anyone that denies or equivocates what the 2ndA CLEARLY states is siding with the forces of Slavery

Please cancel my subscription and refund the balance of my payment as soon as feasible. This is in direct response to Dick Metcalf’s editorial in the latest issue of Guns & Ammo regarding regulation versus infringement. I refuse to support/read a magazine that espouses views that are contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

I find it difficult to wrap my head around how fascistic the majority of commentators are being over an editorial that really comes down to advocating rules that require safe gun handling training before a person should be allowed to concealed carry. It is his opinion, let us discuss it on its legal and moral merits (or lack there of) without resorting flying off the handle and militantly calling for boycotts.

Clearly the 2a supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. The way i see it, the “well regulated” bit seems to still confuse people. Some of the later posters are on point. First, it says “we’ll regulated”, no hyphen. It does not refer to the fact that citizens at large constitute some idealized irregular militia ready to kick redcoat ass to protect ‘Murica. By the time it was written, it was already widely understood that militias were not relevant in battles against professional armies. Also, both federalists and anti federalists understood that the American populace were necessarily armed on a large scale for hunting and defense, and never sought to regulate that. During the writing of the constitution, discussion concerning the 2a and militias revolved around federal control of the militias. Since state control of militias yields a fractured and combat ineffective fighting force (and nobody likes working for free), it was necessary to give the Feds control of militias in addition to the right to raise and maintain a standing army which. The final provisions of these arguments are enumerated in art 1 sec 8 of the constitution. The 2a was necessary to reiterate the fact that citizens could not be disarmed (i.e. in the event the Feds wanted the militia to stand down the militia that they essentially control), and served to codify what everyone implicitly agreed on at the time. The militia issues had been dealt with in the original constitution text, the 2a harkens back the federally controlled well regulated militia, and then unequivocally grants the RKBA to the people. This additionally pleased the (minority) anti-federalists at the time because they wanted state control of the militia and held out hope for the aforementioned broad-based, idealized irregular militias.

So in absolute terms the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Only not really. I don’t believe anyone can reasonably argue that we should not restrict the RKBA for mentally unstable people and people convicted of violent felonies. The arguments in modern gun control tends to revolve around how to implement those restrictions. Given that some restrictions need to be allowed, I don’t think it is unreasonable to discuss training requirements or a certain amount of knowledge be demonstrated before carrying a concealed firearm. I personally think 16 hours is absurd and an unnecessary imposition because it will likely cost a ton of money and time to have some random dude show me the same gun handling rules my dad taught me when I was about 10. So ultimately i concur with most of you politically, but don’t like how you’re being whipped into a gun nutty fervor over some dudes 1 page editorial that reads like a mediocre high school American government essay.

When you approach our Constitution from this direction, you miss the very intent of the document at the outset. The Constitution only grants limited power to the federal government. It restrains the government to only those privileges enumerated. It doesn’t grant any right to the People. Rights are inherent in and unalienable to the People. You’ve got the whole flow of power and rightful possession of power backwards. In order for government to be able to infringe upon (restrict) the right to keep and bear arms, it would have to be granted that privilege in the Constitution. Clearly it is not and is directly prohibited from such; “shall not be infringed”. In the absence of a constitution, the individual would still posses all of his unalienable natural rights.

You would think these people would have more sense, but it was more important for them to be trendy. Whenever I see that mag at the bookstore, I think maybe I should move those copies next to Mother Jones. Its to save the Earth, you understand? Think Guns & Ammo … Then think trendy liberal dopes reinterpreting our constitution so as not to offend the Commissars. Good job, Mr. Farago … now, please move to North Korea. Thanks!

While I don’t think Guns and Ammo is going to disappear, I do think they are going to take a rather heavy hit on their subscriber base. These guys have perfect examples of what happens to those who betray the side they are supposedly on and yet every year it continues to happen. This is an extremely unforgiving community (as it should be), and when you make a mistake like this… there is typically no coming back from it.

I was not a subscriber to G&A anyway. Most of the stuff in the current issues has just been about how cool it is to own an Ar15 or how the 1911 is so awesome. Just talked about the same stuff over and over every issue.

Dick Metcalf is an ignorant Idiot. Gunns and Ammo needs to read and research their editorials before publishing this crap. Read this and become Enlightened.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The next time you hear or see a progressive liberal saying that ‘regulated’ is interpreted as the government stating what the citizens are allowed to own, show them this: The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. [Merkel, p. 361. “Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations.”] In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. “[District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] -MD — with Jeff McKay and 4 others.

For the record, I called and canceled my subscription, referencing the offending editorial. I asked the CS rep if she had gotten any other cancelation requests, she said she hadn’t, but it’s monday morning.

For what it’s worth, G&A had become bathroom fodder anyways. Better and more timely info is online, of course, but I’ve always liked magazines in general.

I’ve enjoyed G&A for decades, but no more. Until Metcalf issues and apology, retraction, and notice of retirement, I’ll never so much as LOOK AT G&A again.

I have spoken with the G&A staff, and if you care to the number is (800) 800-2666. Please be tactful and polite; it was not the staff that wrote this article, and I was treated with respect and dignity.

You don’t like any Amendments to the Constitution there is a process to change them. However you need to learn from history. We now have a government out of control that can tell you what to buy, snoop on your every move, has kill lists, snoops on journalist, intimindates their political enemies, etc. Your failure to learn from History is outright jaw dropping. Those countries that first disarmed their citizen’s killed approaching 200,000,000 in the last century. I think you would agree mankind has not changed. We actually need to have the weapons of at least a basic soldier if we are to prevent that. You know, just like they have In Switzerland. Each home required to have a full auto weapon and ammo. They have never been invaded nor their citizens killed. Of course, they are much more trustworthy than Americans. Now loet your mind reach into that small area that is rational.

The biggest weapon almost evry family has requires no background checks, carries hundreds of foot pounds of kinetic energy, can be purchased at any age if you have the money, felons are good to go, children age 16 can use them in public if the have a license and some places require no training at age 18, and have large enough tanks to drive into a school playground at recess and kill until the kids or gas runs out. I guess we can call that an assault car. Its a self evident truth that guns including real assault rifles are used by cops and citizens every day for good to stop violent crime. According to the Clinton Justice Dept up to 2 million times per year.

Here is a self evident truth that liberals fail to understand.

The People-means the same in the Bill of Rights all of them

Keep-means I own it and you can’t have it

Bear-Means I have it right here on me and its loaded.

Bill of Rights grants no rights but restricts governments from removing God given rights.

It dumbfounds me that a document which was written to restrain government has been turned around to limit the exercise of individual rights by that same government… and many, many foolish people agree with and even defend it! The People have had so much stolen from them yet they still enable the thief to steal even more.

Another firearms owner that will not be purchasing your magazine again.
I realize that ‘dick’ is expressing his opinion but the fact that it’s posted in a magazine that is supposedly a supporter of the 2A is sad.

You shouldn’t let your ‘dick’ speak for the rest of the law abiding gun owners. You’ll just end up stepping on it…

I’m tired of people from our community who are willing to consider that some rights should be restricted and others should not. We should be rolling back gun control to pre-1934 not seeking to add more control on top of what is already TOO MUCH control that has proven to be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ineffective controlling criminals.

driving is a privilege, not a right.
The bill of rights are exactly that.”

That is completely absurd. The bill of rights is not a list of limited “rights” citizens have. If you honestly believe such nonsense you are hopelessly ignorant. I shall refer you to the 9A. And if you don’t understand exactly what that says then you are either being purposely obtuse, or you’re a certifiable retard and the human race has reached the end of genetic advancement and we’re all doomed.

@R. Miller: Where in the Bill of Rights does it say riding a horse, auto etc is a privilege? I would like to direct your attention to the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What you have fallen for is the mantra spread by ass-hats in the police such as State Police commanders etc. They are purveyors of equine manure. What they like to forget is their power comes from the people.

Metcalf needs to go! I will not buy Guns & Ammo magazines – none! He is a threat to our 2A rights. Metcalf, remember Charlton Heston? He was a genuine pro gun gentleman; you are not! And don’t forget his famous statement to Al Gore. You do remember don’t you?

They know better! They do!
IF they cared about “safety of people”, they would be setting aside a budget for more law enforcement to go after criminals who have committed crimes NOT law abiding citizens. Criminals DO NOT buy their guns. They steal them from homes, stores and/or have them smuggled in through Mexico.

I am writing with regard to Dick Metcalf’s article “Let’s Talk Limits” in the December 2013 issue of Guns & Ammo. I found his article to be shockingly ignorant and dangerously anti-2nd Amendment. Having recently fled California I am all too familiar with the sort of “regulation” Metcalf so cheerfully endorses. I am even more appalled to see such a widely read publication such as Guns & Ammo provide a national platform for such virulent anti gun rights rubbish, especially considering the present political climate. Have you people been living under a rock?

It is bad enough that we gun owners have had to deal with the all-out assault on our rights from our own government that has accelerated so steeply since 2009, both covertly and overtly. It is downright dismal to see this sort of backstabbing Zumboism from a publication like Guns & Ammo. You need to figure out which side you are on, and if you are on the side of gun owners, start acting like it.

Pending your public denunciation of Dick Metcalf and your termination of his employment, I plan to never again spend my money on this or any of your other publications, and will urge the same of any friends, family, and online forum members who care to listen.

Mr. wannabe Zumbo…Dumbo?…Bimbo?…Numbo?…whatever…the 2nd is a recognition of our “GOD GIVEN RIGHT” to self defense, a right that exists and has full authority from our creator as a gift to man that cannot be “INFRINGED” “regulated”…meddled with…mucked with…interfered with in any manner whatsoever no matter what any human says or does. The animal creation has god given instincts, placed there by the creator of the animals for their survival. When the animals disembarked from the ark, God put in them the fear of man otherwise, man would wipe them off the planet. When I am packing in Griz country, I pack heavy firepower for that unfortunate unplanned meeting of a Griz cub because I know mama is not far away and will be headed my way with the power of a freight train…survival instinct she was given by our creator. Don’t be such an arrogant A** to think you can mess with what God has given man…that will put you in league Satan the Devil…an evil fallen opponent of god who is the supreme liar and cause of evil on earth.

I’ve just canceled my subscription.
I wish everyone did the same, in which case G&A would be out of money in a few months.

The thing is, we probably cannot impeach some piece of crap, because there are far too many enemies and useful idiots who support him.
But it is in our power to bankrupt some of our enemies: they make the most money from ads, and who is going to advertise in a magazine that nobody buys?..
Only people like us buy/subscribe to this toilet paper publication, and if most of us decide it’s time to ditch it, they are gone, in an instant.

Ya know, given the sad history of editors going out of their way to antagonize their subscribers — and being shockingly wrong factually (and here, legally) in their arguments, and said editors being asked to vacate their positions in the face of massive subscriber cancellations upon publication of such wrong-headed pieces–you would think that such people would learn to (a) get their facts straight , such as READING AND UNDERSTANDING THE HELLER DECISION, (b)clear their articles with their editorial boards, and (c) resign before publishing idiotic articles, instead of being fired afterward.

Metcalf should be fired immediately. “I believe in the 2nd Amendment but…” Really? He needs to be reminded that: 1) he has no right to his job; 2) his audience is full of individuals who DO believe in the 2nd amendment and ALL our other inalienable rights. Leave. Now. Hang your head in shame. And while you’re at it, pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of “regulated”. Use it in a sentence and get the meaning from context, as in the context of the 2nd Amendment, the highest law in the land.

Guns & Ammo needs to repudiate this individual and his statements immediately if they choose to have any readership at all. Advertisers will no longer pay to advertise in a rag that nobody reads. Unless they want to try to sell their guns and gear to anti-gunners.

Read “A Note on Uberveillance” by M. D. Michael. Newport News Police and Virginia State Police had Dr. Lawrence Chang implant me w/o my knowledge and consent with a biochip. It enables torture. They use it as a sensor and pulse energy projectiles at you. I had a heart attack. It enables voice to skull communication. See LRAD white papers or audio spotlight by Holosonics. See Safeguards in a World of Ambient Intelligence by Springer page 9. See Mental Health and Terrorism by Amin Gadit. See Bio Initiative Report 2012. See Forbescom and search Brandon Raub. Law enforcement tases citizens into “excited delirium” (see at nijorg) to make them act in ways they normally would not. I believe they are directly responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre. There are 3 reasons to have it implanted 1) mental health, 2) criminal record, and 3) infectious disease. If you don’t meet any of those requirements like me, they’ll falsify your records. All the mass shootings are the work of law enforcement. They want to take away your right to bear arms and make America a police state. They torture people into a state of what the national institute of justice calls “excited delirium.” People aren’t suddenly going crazy, they’re being tortured. I also believe the biochip to be responsible for PTSD. Read Brian Castner’s book “A Long Walk”. I have the same ambiguous pains, twitches, heart attack, night mares, day mares, gurgling, etc. I never served in the war. What do we have in common? The biochip. Suicide is one way to get relief. Virginia’s suicide rate is higher than the national average and the military suicide rate is unacceptable! I am considering cutting the one in my back out myself.

Unless Dick Metcalf and the entire editorial staff of Guns & Ammo issue a firm and thorough retraction and apology, My Guns & Ammo subscription will expire without renewal. I cannot send my money to any entity that supports the agenda of the enemies of liberty.

Just for the record, I just subscribed to Guns & Ammo for two years and I am not going to cancel that. Dick is right in one thing. Some regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is reasonable. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that felons can’t keep and bear arms but we don’t allow them to do so (legally). So we have clearly circumscribed the right to some extent not explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment.

The question is not whether some regulation is reasonable. The real question is what regulation is reasonable.

As to the meaning of a “well regulated militia,” that probably meant a militia regulated by civilian authority in the state (that is by the state, not the Fed) but the purpose of that regulation was to create a well ordered, trained, and capable body of civilians able to bear arms.

I think this is probably making a little to big a fuss over some razor sharp definitions of words. Dick is fundamentally right that we have both the right and the duty to regulate who bears what arms, and where. Again the real question is what regulations do we create, and to what end.

We, those who believe in a right to arms and self defense, want as little limitation as possible on the law abiding. We don’t want to undergo a rectal exam every time we buy a box of bullets. Or have useful guns banned on some theory that it might same some life. But even we – the most extreme – have to realize that some control and regulation is necessary, if for no other reason to have an explicit law to put a criminal in jail for using a gun in a crime.

“So we have clearly circumscribed the right to some extent not explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment.”

The antis argue this as well… “There are already restrictions on the RKBA so it CAN be infringed.” So, does the Constitution mean what it says?

“Dick is fundamentally right that we have both the right and the duty to regulate who bears what arms, and where. Again the real question is what regulations do we create, and to what end.”

Dick is wrong. The Second and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution are clear. No only is the right of the people to keep and bear arms NOT an enumerated power of the federal government; it is expressly forbidden. Again, Dick is very, very wrong. You are making a slippery slope argument that ends in tyranny. If you want the federal government to regulate the individual RKBA then the first step is an amendment to the Constitution. The next step is to start over building court precedent for the infringement on the individual’s natural right of self defense. The method that you recommend is actually the usurpation of power and is illegitimate under our system of government. In other words, you want a different form of government and don’t yet realize that fact.

“But even we – the most extreme – have to realize that some control and regulation is necessary, if for no other reason to have an explicit law to put a criminal in jail for using a gun in a crime.”

I’m not so sure about that statement. Why can’t the weapon used simply be a consideration for a judge and jury at the time of trial on one of the more basic criminal laws? We already do this. For examples: Someone being tried for assault, murder, etc, the jury can consider if it was done for profit or perhaps a crime of passion? The judge also can consider this at sentencing. In theft cases… was it because the person was starving to death or were they wanting to profit? In auto theft cases… was the accused mortally injured and trying to get to the hospital? Was the accused trying to flee from an attempted murder of the accused? Heck, we don’t really even need so-called hate crime laws. The jury can take into account if the victim was chosen because of their race, beliefs, etc and the judge could consider it at sentencing.

Seriously, I fail to see where, in most cases, specific firearm laws are necessary when the accused goes to trial. Perhaps we could go through different firearm related charges and see if there aren’t more basic criminal laws that cover that very same thing.

Wow, what a bunch of whiny bitches. If you’re so hypersensitive about something maybe that indicates you really know deep down he actually has a point. I swear, gun nuts have to be the biggest scared little bitches in the country, why is it you feel a need to be armed all the time? I’m a military vet, I’ve faced real danger, and I don’t feel so afraid of my fellow citizens I need to be packing heat at all times. You’re far more likely to die in a car accident than from a violent crime

“Wow, what a bunch of whiny bitches. If you’re so hypersensitive about something maybe that indicates you really know deep down he actually has a point. I swear, gun nuts have to be the biggest scared little bitches in the country, why is it you feel a need to be armed all the time? I’m a military vet, I’ve faced real danger, and I don’t feel so afraid of my fellow citizens I need to be packing heat at all times. You’re far more likely to die in a car accident than from a violent crime”

First, you state you are a military vet who has faced “real danger.” We have the anti-gun community constantly throwing in our face all this “gun violence” yet you are doing nothing to protect yourself from it I see… so is “gun violence” not an issue then or what? And if not as you have implied, why all the push for gun regulation by our current legislators?

Also, when you joined the military you took the oath to uphold and defend the constitution. I guess you took the oath before you read the constitution? You say [Metcalf] deep down has a point… what point is that exactly – that the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it really says? If you think Metcalf is correct in regard to the right to keep and bear arms… maybe you should read the constitution again or for the first time – whichever is required?

You say we are far more likely to die in a car accident than a violent crime. I’ll agree with that. But why all the gun legislation then? Why the pursuit for gun regulations? Why aren’t we focusing on car violence or car accidents… rather than gun violence and gun accidents? Is death by gun worse than death by car? I”m a little confused here. Maybe you can clear these up for me.

The author of the article in Guns & Ammo is absolutely correct about the nature of the Second Amendment. Yes, the Second Amendment preserves a pre-existing natural right that exists independent of the government, and the Second Amendment says the government cannot infringe on that right. But in the legal sense, “shall not be infringed” does not mean an absolute bar to any sort of limitation whatsoever, and the Bill of Rights has never been understood that way. For example, the First Amendment says the government cannot make any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” But it can make a law that makes it illegal for someone to write and publish “The Illustrated Guide to Child Pornography” — even though that law technically abridges the that person’s freedom of speech. And, that I’ll go to jail for yelling “bomb” on a plane or disclosing national intelligence secrets, even though that’s speech. But, the government cannot bar someone from things like criticizing the President or saying “God hates Catholics.” Similarly, the government can make laws that say, for example, felons cannot bear arms, even though it technically infringes the right to bear arms. There ARE, however, limits on what laws the government can make re the Second Amendment. Some people might not like the idea that there can be at least “some” limits, but that is unquestionably the law.

“…But it can make a law that makes it illegal for someone to write and publish “The Illustrated Guide to Child Pornography” — even though that law technically abridges the that person’s freedom of speech.”

You are not comparing apples to apples here. So a person cannot write a publication regarding child pornography – acceptable, however we are not trying to regulate, register, track, and perform background checks on this individual for the acquisition of a computer, typewriter, or writing instrument for which he could use to write this publication, or require that he be trained for the instrument’s use. We are however pushing to perform these on firearms. There are already restrictions on the 2nd amendment. It is against the law to kill people. If you hurt someone with a gun – consequences will entail.

“Some people might not like the idea that there can be at least “some” limits, but that is unquestionably the law.”

I would agree, there are many laws are on the books that directly violate the bill of rights. In fact, legislators are writing more right now we could add to that list.

Yet here in Virginia, the police are implanting innocent citizens with biochips, tasing them into what the national institute of justice calls “excited delirium” and instructing them to kill– i.e. Virginia Tech students. Why? To take away all Americans right to bear arms. Why? because the biochip enables them to torture, electronically rape and sodomize citizens. Why? they are the anti-Chirst. See “A Note on Uberveillance” by M. D. Michael or Safeguards in a World of Ambient Intelligence by Springer – Page 9. See Mental Health and Terrorism by Amin Gadit. See the BioInitiative Report 2012 – it’s a human carcinogen. Go to Forbes dot Com and search Brandon Raub. People didn’t suddenly start being mentally ill – Law enforcement are murderers by their own admission. They are so proud of Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech they promoted the naval yard murders. What next? I hope a school that houses their own children!

That’s not really true. As disgusting as it is, writing about having sex with children is perfectly legal as long as it’s fiction. A how to guide teaching people how to do criminal acts, however, may not be legal.

Same goes for giving firearms to someone who purposely tells you he’s going to rob a bank or kill a bunch of innocent people. Knowingly providing a firearm for that purpose means you’re in trouble as well.

Money is also perfectly legal to have. However, if you made that money doing criminal activities, then all of it gets confiscated. Same goes for child porn and same goes for firearms.

Our right to bear arms is protected, and so is our free speech. However, our right to commit heinous acts is not. So in exercising out rights, we can not also commit felonies at the same time. That’s why when people bring up an analogy to child porn, or yelling fire in a crowded theater, you are commiting other crimes in exercising your rights. Those crimes are not protected, and what you’ll be arrested for. Just like having a gun in a movie theater should never be illegal, but shooting innocent people in a movie theater is illegal.

“you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next.” This is probably the most ignorant, ridiculous, and misleading statement I have ever seen. To be so semantic and asinine as to use the literal understanding of “can” is foolish. Based on this understanding, you “can” do literally anything you want to. You “can” kill someone in cold blood, you “can” steal your neighbor’s car, etc. In every situation of people breaking the law they “can” do it but are legally responsible for what happens next. THAT IS THE POINT OF MAKING THINGS ILLEGAL. You are legally responsible whenever you do something that breaks any law, by this argument you are either saying we shouldn’t have any laws OR [the real situation] you are unwittingly affirming the argument you are trying to discredit.

“you “Can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.” Yes. Yes you can. It’s just that you’re legally responsible for what happens next.”

This is probably the most ignorant, ridiculous, and misleading statement I have ever seen. To be so semantic and asinine as to use the literal understanding of “can” is foolish. Based on this understanding, you “can” do literally anything you want to. You “can” kill someone in cold blood, you “can” steal your neighbor’s car, etc. In every situation of people breaking the law they “can” do it but are legally responsible for what happens next. THAT IS THE POINT OF MAKING THINGS ILLEGAL. You are legally responsible whenever you do something that breaks any law, by this argument you are either saying we shouldn’t have any laws OR [the real situation] you are unwittingly affirming the argument you are trying to discredit.”

So… I see you didn’t get it, so i’ll try to present this in a logical way.

Anyone can yell fire in a crowded theater. Since they are admitted into the theater with no gag and their lips are not sewn shut there is actually nothing in place to stop them. There are consequences if they do yell “fire” if there is in fact no fire. Farago is relating this to firearm ownership. Everyone is supposedly to have the right to keep and bear arms as listed in the “bill of rights” and identified as a right endowed upon them by their creator (declaration of independence – second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”). These rights were listed in the “Bill of rights.” Now… Everyone is supposed to have this right, however we want to perform universal registration, tracking, fees with transfers, permits for carry (violates “bear arms”), background checks, proposed laws requiring safe storage, etc. This is just for “keeping and bearing.” Now equate this with yelling fire in a theater… This effectively requires registration of all people who could use the word “fire”, fees for the capability of its use, permits issued for those that can speak the word, background checks on those that can use the word, and gags to be inserted in mouths were required.

Do you see where I am going with this? Current regulation is not trying to stop the capability of yelling fire in theaters… but legislators past and present have/are making a great deal of regulation on “keeping and bearing” arms. Regardless, yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire is against the law, but so is shooting people. Just because someone “keeps and bears” arms doesn’t mean they are going to shoot anyone any more than someone that walks in a theater who has the capability of shouting the word fire.

Our friend at the Military Arms Channel broke the story, but it looks like the anti-gun diatribe penned by Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf [dissected by RF here] earned him a one way trip to the unemployment line. Editor Jim Bequette wrote a statement on the issue, and MAC got the scoop. You can see the original image at the link, or make the jump for the transcribed version.

From Jim Bequette, Editor Guns & Ammo Magazine:

As editor of Guns & Ammo, I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s Backstop column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning Guns & Ammo‘s commitment to the Second Amendment, and I understand why.

Let me be clear: our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment is unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers like Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction from the pages of Guns & Ammo.

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — and, most importantly, Guns & Ammo’s. It is very clear to me that they didn’t reflect the views of our readership, either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and ask your forgiveness.

Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of Guns & Ammo Jan 1. These recent events have convinced me I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new Guns & Ammo editor will be Eric Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications like Book of the AR-15 and Trigger. You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.

Guns & Ammo will never fail to vigorously lead in the struggle for our Second Amendment rights and with vigorous young editorial leadership, will do it even better in the future.

Blog meet fools…fools meet blogs. LOL This guy is probably trying to help your cause before more crazy guys shoot the place up along with any rights you currently have. You are using a Red Herring argument with Metcalf and the yelling “Fire!” in a theater. You stay that you can but there are consequences well what do you think regulations are. This is a regulation on FREE SPEECH. There should be some regulations on guns. The argument that this is only the beginning has NO basis in fact…where have laws gotten worse and worse for anything in the Bill or Rights. They seem to be able to put reasonable boundaries on Freedom of Speech and Religion but they are suddenly not capable of doing that with guns. You and your like solidify the opposition and are going to ruin it for us all. Stop being idiots and making this a fight instead of making this something where we all work towards a reasonable solution.

Of course! We should make murder a crime with or without a gun. But wait! Every penal code on known history has done that. The gun control proposals go way beyond punishing the misuse of firearms and aim at possession with no criminal intent involved. The gun I have in my safe or my dresser drawer will just sit there and harm no one. Possession crimes for items that have legitimate uses (unlike narcotics) without mens rea are irrational on their face.

Lol….. Where to start with you. Us in the academic world normally shy away from quoting Wikipedia, it isn’t a definitive source. Secondly apparently you have never studied philosophy, your take on natural rights is totally wrong. You should try reading, Jeremy Bentham, John Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Locke. Maybe if you spent more time learning instead of practicing killing things you would have a happier more enlightened life.

“Lol….. Where to start with you. Us in the academic world normally shy away from quoting Wikipedia, it isn’t a definitive source. Secondly apparently you have never studied philosophy, your take on natural rights is totally wrong. You should try reading, Jeremy Bentham, John Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Locke. Maybe if you spent more time learning instead of practicing killing things you would have a happier more enlightened life.”

What a strange statement. Its like an exploding implosion. Like an engine spitting sparks where some components push forward and others backward. Just doesn’t make any sense.

You are aware that the philosophies of the founding fathers were greatly influenced by John Locke who you mention above – especially in the writing of the declaration of independence. Surely you are also aware that the founding fathers wrote a document called the Bill of Rights. You assert that the writer of this article has never studied philosophy, but if you have the right to make claims with no evidence then we should equally have the right to assert that you apparently have never studied the constitution or history.

Wikipedia is written based on the community – yes. Is it a credible source? Maybe not. But if not, what really is? You state you are from the “academic world” but insinuate that wikipedia is not credible. My question to you would then be… are you positively sure that any source really is? Did that source actually see the events unfold? Were they honest in their report of those events?

This one answered all my questions about who you are:“Maybe if you spent more time learning instead of practicing killing things you would have a happier more enlightened life.”

It is clear you simply don’t like our culture and make insulting, unsubstantiated assertions of the action of “killing things.” Maybe if you spent more time stepping outside your enclosed realm into our world you would see it differently. It is clear, you are simply commenting on our culture of which you have no knowledge.

First, perhaps you should take your own advice and read a history book. Second, the very definition of “militia” includes the word “non-professionals”, so a standing army can’t be a militia. During the creation of the constitution, everything was actually penned to affirm people’s rights, not take them away or regulate them. It was about restricting government, not the people. The term “well-regulated” was a phrase commonly used at the time and often referring to something like calibrating a watch, or keeping maintained. This refers to people staying trained, and weapons maintained. It was this understanding that should the government get too oppressive then any able bodied person would form into a militia and do what’s necessary to maintain a free state.

If you don’t believe that, then you can ask my history professor, we had a nice long classroom discussion on this, and even he agrees although he’s a leftist. He’s in the camp of thinking the constitution is outdated and needs to changed with modern society, it was written during the time of muskets etc….

When the federal government was formed you had 2 camps, the federalists and the anti-federalists. A compromise was reached where a federal government was formed, but it had limits on it’s power because the anti-feds feared a national military could be used as a tool to oppress, which historically to this day is an accurate assumption to make. This is why the military can not operate on U.S. soil. They can train and prepare, but they are only for the defense of our country against foreign enemies. The anti-feds also put in a claus for the right to bear arms for the protection of a free state. Essentially so if the federal government did become out of control, people could form up and rise against them. These non-professionals would maintain themselves as a militia. You take away the 2nd amendment, you take away any hope of regaining control of a rampant government. And no, no one here things Obama is out to oppress and take over the country. We are a very young country, look how drastically things have changed in 300 years, pro-2nd amendmentors(not gun nuts) are just thinking how drastically things can change in the next 100, 200, 300 years. The 1st amendment is freedom, which is why it’s first, the 2nd amendment is the insurance policy that the people stay free.

I’m more worried about libtards like you that want so easily to give up your freedoms, hand yourself over to the government and say “Here, how should i live my life, you guys know what’s best”. That’s a slippery slope towards socialism, and communism. Modern society is too heavily complacent and freedom is something out of sight and out of mind to them.

Anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment needs to believe in the WHOLE 2nd Amendment. “Well regulated” is RIGHT there in the text of the amendment. Stop thinking that the amendment gives you the right to own unregulated firearms.

You’re correct, kindly troll. The Second Amendment doesn’t GIVE anyone rights. Because a well functioning militia is necessary to our free State, it specifically prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When one also reads the Ninth Amendment, then one can clearly see that not only is the power to infringe/regulate firearms NOT granted, the 2A and 9A prohibit such behavior by government.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the right to self defense is a natural right, unalienable to each individual. While we may be bound by our contract with government (Constitution) so that we can be punished for crimes, federal crimes (especially) cannot exceed powers enumerated in the contract. Infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specifically NOT one of those enumerated powers; “shall not be infringed”.

Oh…and that pesky little thing about a militia….which would prove obsolete once we instituted a standing army.

WE have a standing army, which means YOU don’t need a gun! I laugh at all the wann be crime fighters! Oh baby! tough guys!!! Uuuuuuu…..I’m gonna shoot the bad guys! Yeah, after you urinate in your shorts! LOL….Lincoln said that armed resistance the the government in insurrectionary or revolutionary…maybe I shouldn’t quote Lincoln! I know the Stars and Bars is revered by so many gun nuts.

Let me guess, you grew up in the suburbs, you wouldn’t know the first thing about all the crime out there. My friend, his GF and I were nearly killed several years ago by 7 puerto rican ghetto thugs that weren’t allowed into the restaurant/bar we were eating at because they didn’t meet the dress code. Already pissed, and pulling out their race cards, they saw us coming out of the restaurant. They made a comment to us, and my friend had a smart comment back. Next thing we knew, these guys disproportionatley answered back by running across the parking lot and attacking us. I held my own against 4 guys and never went down, but sufferred a black eye and pain pretty much everywhere. My friend went down and they beat him on the ground senselessly, he seriously could have died had some restaurant employees not intervened. The thugs started attacking and chasing them around the parking lot when the cops finally decided to show up.

I was 25 years old at the time and never shot a gun in my life. I didn’t care for them and thought they were bad. I was also never into politics, and never watched the news. I was living the bachelor life, always out with girls and didn’t have a care in the world. The following year i purchased my first gun and sought training after a slew of house robberies struck my rural area. I realized the police can take up to 45mins to get to us if they’re at the station booking someone. I was just a bit more aware of what i didn’t think about before.

The irony is that libtards like you make comments like “I’m gonna shoot the bad guys! Yeah, after you urinate in your shorts! LOL”, but reality is, it’s the libtards that run away and scream, and when the time comes, just takes it. Then cries about it on the news, and looks for other people and things to blame other than the person committing the act. The fact is, at the range, when you look around. None of these guys are the type you would see “urinating in their shorts”. They just don’t look that wussy to me. However, a typical anti-gunner looks like that coffee shop geek, playing on their iphone, and macbook, talking good talk but never actually accomplishing anythng. That’s the guy that’ll crap themselves if they get robbed.

A good militia is never obsolete as proven by the Finns when they repelled the Soviets when the Soviets were in league with the 3rd Reich. They were also a big deal in resistance fighters around Europe. The Philippines put up resistance against the Imperial Japanese Army for the duration. What you pea brains fail to comprehend is its the last line of defense. You can rest assured this wasn’t lost on the Soviets nor the Red Chinese. During WWI and WWII, the Germans tried to get the Mexicans to back jump us and we stuck a finger in their face.

The fact that you can be held civilly and criminally liable for the outcome if you yell “fire” in a crowded theater means that you have no right to do so. If such a right existed it would be an absolute defense in a civil or criminal action.

You can be held accountable if you bludgeon someone with a heavy crucifix. Yet we have freedom to believe as we wish. You can be held accountable if you slander someone and you can be held accountable if you commit liable. Yet we have freedom to express ourselves. You can be held accountable if you unlawfully harm someone with a firearm or otherwise put them in real jeopardy. Yet we have the freedom to keep and bear arms.

I am as pro 2A as the next guy but I just have to point our that the examples and definition of “well regulated” included one that refers to a well regulated person. If well regulated refers to ‘property’ and yet the website you refer to, seemingly written by a college student, gives an example of it’s use to describe a person. If it was used to describe a person, it is logical to infer that it can be used to descript a group of people.

The other part of your comment states that we certainly are free to shout fire in a theater as if to prove that Metcalf was trying to say that we are not physically able to. I think any intelligent person understands what he is referring to.

We need to be careful when we defend the second amendment that when we refute something it is done in a more thoughtful way. Although I do not agree with Mr. Methcalf, I do not agree with the logic used to refute the two points I mentioned above. Perhaps a better argument could be made on these points as I feel that yours do not hold up well and you know I am a big fan of your website. 🙂

What he did was drag out the tired old canard that because one cannot FALSELY yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater without potential legal ramifications that free speech can be legitimately infringed. He then applied that myth to the Second Amendment. The problem is that free speech can’t legitimately be regulated. Free speech zones are another infringement and one wrong by government can’t be used to justify another wrong. Anything misused to harm another or presents a REAL situation of immediate potential harm is a crime regardless of the method and tool. Someone gave a pretty good link about the “Fire!” myth in comments somewhere around here. If you want me to re-post it and a few others, I’ll be glad to so do.

It’s interesting to see the reaction of G&A as well as the knowledgable masses here and elsewhere on the internet. After reading Metcalf’s article I realized that he isn’t abdicating the need for the 2A, to the contrary he’s making a case to keep it safe and out of the crosshairs of those who would like to see it repealed. He clearly states that there isn’t enough comprehensive state regulation (and sustained) training being conducted that will minimize the Barney Fifes of the world. People take tests for all types of activities, but because one activity is protected by our constitution doesn’t mean we don’t regulate how it’s applied. When carrying the responsibility of life or death with you I believe there needs to be a test to ensure you are not a danger to yourself or those you are protecting. Wether you like it or not, if you’ve never been in combat or conducted sustained realistic training, you have absolutely no idea how you’ll react when faced with a life or death situation….ie…someone is shooting at you. The books “On Killing” and “On Combat” highlight the physiological and psychological impacts of combat. The book highlights that unless trained you have no control over the actions of the internal fight or flight mechanism. It’s like the hunter in Africa who is staring down a cape buffalo charging directly at him and he is frozen where he stands. It’s not his fault, his body is reacting and he is completely shutdown. It’s called “being in the black” and like it or not Metcalf probably has more experience/knowledge regarding this subject than most of those attacking him. I find it sad that G&A are so blind by their own BS that they would hang a man like Metcalf out to dry.

“After reading Metcalf’s article I realized that he isn’t abdicating the need for the 2A, to the contrary he’s making a case to keep it safe and out of the crosshairs of those who would like to see it repealed.”

Yea, I disagree.

Metcalf seems confused on the difference between “well regulated” in 1791 and “well regulated” in 2013. Well regulated in 1791 meant well maintained, trained, in good order, etc. Today “well regulated” means endless bureaucratic red tape.

In fact, every analogy he wrote was flawed and typically used by the anti gun crowd.

We have the can’t yell fire in a theater analogy which doesn’t compare apples to apples. Anyone has the capability of yelling fire, however regulations currently imposed and currently proposed on the 2A require background checks, transfer fees, record keeping, permits for carry, registration, banning of certain types of ammunition, banning of certain types of firearms. An equivalent regulation on the 1st amendment as supplied by Metcalf (yelling fire in a theater) would be people capable of yelling fire in a theater would need to be registered, charged fees, background checks on them, and gags in their mouths where applicable. Metcalf made a deceptive, flawed analogy in favor of regulation of the 2A.

We have the automobile analogy… again. Comparing firearms to car laws. Cars need to be insured, registered, licensed drivers. But again… it is bogus. Anyone can have a car that is not registered, not licensed, not insured, and with any modifications – they only need to keep it on their private property. An equivalent analogy is I can have any gun I want, machine guns… cannons… as long as it is on my private property. Metcalf made another deceptive flawed analogy in favor of regulation of the 2A.

Regardless, his entire article was pro-regulation on the 2A with total fallacious comparisons to other actions and in favor to regulation.

Yelling fire in a theater to incite a panic will have consequences. Shooting innocent people with a gun will have consequences. Criminal activity has consequences. It should never be a crime to keep and bear arms. – Yet many arms you can’t bear or keep, and you can’t bear any at all without a permit. This is called infringement and directly violates the 2A and Metcalf clearly showed his support for this.

I want to point out that I have not renewed my subscription to G&A. Not just for this article but for others I read throughout the year. Stuff like promoting carrying a gun without one in the chamber, carrying a pocket gun without a pocket holster, etc.. It made me wonder if the authors were just writers who happen to own guns or real gun people who would not engage in unsafe practices.

BTW I tried to edit my comment above because I did not like how I ended it. I meant to say that when we refute something we need to be careful of the sources we use to back us up. I just do not thing the two particular examples given would hold up in a debate or serious discussion. Picking something said and bringing it to an absurd conclusion is a well know tactic to discredit what someone said and perhaps stating that we are free to yell fire to refute what Mr. Metcalf said was just a little bit of this. 🙂 I still love ya.

The further America moves away from being a white republic, the further the multi-cultists will trample our rights, even claiming to use the Constitution as a way to excuse it. The Constitution is only useful in the context of a strong white republic. Without that, it’s just a “document” and “amendments” that people will fight over till the rights are amended away.

His “buying a car” analogy is seriously flawed in that purchasing an automobile does not require a background check, would that it were. But I don’t think that expressing an opinion – that training should be required for anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon – is tantamount to having the DHS Gestapo kick down our doors and take away our legally owned firearms.

The only thing that gives me pause about this whole affair is the utter hypocrisy. All the people who scream “The 2nd protects the 1st”, now want to trample Metcalf’s 1st simply because he’d like to see people properly trained before they exercise their 2nd??

I too have been on ranges next to people of questionable experience with firearms, and I don’t like it. I’ve had some people ask me “Well why don’t you help them?” I do. I help them put their firearm away, then I help them off the range and give them the number of an instructor I know. I pay my range fee so I can shoot, not to spend my time trying to not get shot.

No, it just mean that you don’t realize who much undermining has been going on to the 2a. It shouldn’t be regulated. What should be regulated is criminals. A murderer shouldn’t be able to buy a gun because they should be in jail. Frankly, the NFA of 1934 was passed under the pretext of gangland and it didn’t do squat because Capone, Dillinger et al. didn’t bother registering their stolen Thomy Guns etc. It should be repealed along with components of the 1968 GCA and the 1986 ban.

Remember, much of this was done under the auspices of Interstate Trade hence the tax stamps and the ATF.

First, previous wrongs by the government don’t make future wrongs legitimate. Second, his statements are appeasement or naivete at best and flat out disinformation at worst. Third, the Constitution enumerates power vested in the government and even further restricts government. It is THE contract through which the People agreed to be governed. If TTAG or G&A were government institutions then they’d be subject to the limitations set forth by the Constitution.

“I guess that means I hate the Constitution, right?”

You suggested it… Perhaps you’re just grossly misinformed? If unintentional ignorance is the case then now is the time to educate yourself as to: what our constitution is and is not, what its purpose is and isn’t, how the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free State so it cannot be infringed, and the origin of natural rights and what unalienable truly means. The choice is yours. If you choose to learn then you will no longer be misinformed. If you choose to continue as you are then, indeed, you are against not only the Constitution but the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

The 10th Amendment gives states the power to govern themselves as they see fit, provided any laws they pass are not in direct conflict with the Constitution.

This means they can regulate their concealed carry permit programs themselves, mandating as little or as much training as they choose to, with no interference from the Federal Government.

The Bill of Rights is a package deal. If we demand constitutional limits be placed on individual state authority guaranteed by the 10th, that might give the feds the idea they can start placing additional limits on other amendments as well. No one wants that.

I still fail to see what the problem is. With the preponderance of new firearms owners since the Sandy Hook incident, I don’t think it’s an infringement if people are required to do a little more than simply read an owner’s manual before they attempt to obtain a carry permit. It’s funny that no one considers hunter safety courses an infringement, but they have no problem with people carrying concealed handguns after a minimum of safety and marksmanship training.

I’ll say it again, no where in Metcalf’s article did he advocate any restrictions on **ownership**. And neither have I. The article was about training standards for concealed carry permit holders, nothing more, yet everyone’s getting their panties in a bunch.

Can any of you legal scholars show me in my comment where I suggested that firearms ownership needs to be curtailed any further?

As for “choosing to learn”, I’m already pursuing my Bachelors in Legal Studies. Thanks for the suggestion.

My bottom line is this: A criminal with a firearm is, to me, just about as dangerous as an UNTRAINED civilian with one.

The real “slippery slope” is: Who gets to determine what, and how much, training is adequate? Should that be left to the Feds? I don’t think so. States should determine that, as is their right per the 10th Amendment.

But instead of having a discussion on that topic, people would rather just burn Metcalf in effigy.

Much like your concern about the inexperienced shooter at the range harming another individual; those who pontificate from a position of willful ignorance on the Constitution and natural rights, potentially harm many, many people and those future generations who must live under the yoke of tyranny. Unlike your solution, I’m not ‘helping’ you pack up and ‘helping’ you leave. I’m suggesting that you have some fundamentals askew based upon your comment. In other words, I’m offering helpful tips. You can choose to be an inexperienced or even stubborn ‘shooter’ whereby you risk endangering a multitude now and in the future. Or, you can correct deficits and mistaken notions in you knowledge and hone your skills to make you not only an effective ‘shooter’ but also a safer one. What you choose to do about it is on you.

I agree with you about the respective states deciding these issues. Natural rights come into play so it is a bit murkier for me. However, that is an area in which I do currently profess ignorance as to the specifics. I wouldn’t attempt to discuss it in depth myself as I wouldn’t want to mislead or derail those trying to educate the People of the Gun and others as to the details.

‘I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.’

The Second Amendment does not specifically mention guns, just “arms” which can refer to any type of armament (and there is no court precedent saying that it should be interpreted to mean only firearms, see http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/27/michigan-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban-says-second-amendment-applies-to-open-carry-in-public/ for example). Do you really mean this blanket statement to imply there can be no “buts” to the private ownership of any type of weapon whatsoever, including things like cannons, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc? And would you disagree with the Supreme Court’s 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller, which said that states could restrict ownership of weapons which don’t have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”? Note that the recent District of Columbia v. Heller decision, generally seen as a victory for gun rights advocates, cited the Miller case as a precedent that the Second Amendment does not cover all arms: “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.” If you agree with this, then like it or not you have placed yourself squarely in the “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” camp.

Anyone who has a problem with “I believe in X, but…” in ANY context, guns or anything else, is unworthy of my friendship. Far more so than Metcalf, who expressed an opinion but left plenty of room for us to disagree.

Real issues – issues of fundamental importance, like the Second Amendment, and just about every amendment for that matter – have room for depth of discussion. Real world problems almost never have “yes or no” answers.

Demanding “no compromise, no but…” answers when there is actually room for genuine debate and disagreement is the true betrayal of gun owners – because it makes it easy for the opposition to paint us all as dedicated fanatics who can’t stand up to debate. Worse, it makes them _correct_ to do so.

I can’t believe they were that stupid?? You would think they would have learned that if you give the DEMOCRATS an inch they will — well you know how it goes!!
I just canceled my new subscription and contacted every gun owner I know and forwarded this to them.

AWESOME article! I’ve posted the links to my Facebook page/News Feed. Thank you for holding Guns & Ammo accountable. It ties in directly with the recent Chuck Baldwin article about “Our Friends Are Killing Us” (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/1097/Our-Friends-Are-Killing-Us.aspx), where he talks about the damage being done to the Constitution and our freedom from people who are supposed to be on OUR side. Thank you for your article, and keep ’em coming!

Spot on! The fools here are embarrassing, the shame real Americans with their boy toy gun hobby nonsense. Basically they are infants who’ve never grown up. It’s a clear example of what ignorance and paranoia creates in shut-ins.

Why even comment here? This is a site that promotes and supports the 2nd amendment.

Let me school you some.
The president and congress could not get any gun control legislation passed after the newtown massacre, along with Aurora, Arizona, WI temple and Virginia Tech and whatever other shootings you which to include and blame on guns. The gungrabbers took each and everyone of those incidents and perverted the truths in order to gain support for more gun control. It all failed, and miserably might I add. Obama’s second round of presidential executive laws he pushed just few days ago do nothing in the realm of preventing criminals from getting firearms. The 91% poll that showed Americans want background checks was also perverted by the left, yes most Americans want checks as they are now, but after the poll was taken the gungrabbers added in words like “expanded” and “universal”, none of which the poll takers voted on. Your side cheats daily, lies always and never admits when their facts are wrong, and still you can’t get any gun control legislation passed.
Did you know that 44% of democrats own firearms? Republicans it’s only to 58%. Did you know shooting sports are the fastest growing sports in the USA? Did you know more people are armed now than at any other time in our nation’s history and gun murders and murders in general have drastically dropped over the last decade or more? Maybe you do but if so you’d never admit to knowing as your arguments against gun rights are unsubstantiated and weak. Did I also mention unconstitutional and illegal. Yes, the gungrabbers actions much of the time, this includes politicians, police, judges ect. are committing illegal acts that have no precedent in current law. And again, you still fail!
With Obama going out soon and a congress moving more independent, libertarian and conservative you have no chance, as the case has always been, to pass gun control on the federal levels. Even the moderate and bluedog dems shun the progressives and their insane view on firearms. In reality the democrats would rule politics if they did a 180 on gun control, it’s thee main issue that prevents them from dominating our system. 320+ million people, over 400 million firearms, only 30k dead a year. That’s damn good numbers. When the math is done and it turns out that only about 2,500 regular citizens get killed each year from firearms it puts perspective on the whole issue. We have a mental health, economic, suicide, gang and militarization of police problem, we could easily throw in that we have a culture issue to, mostly brought to us by democratic controlled Hollywood.
You people are your own worst enemy.

I don’t think you got the point. They are implanting everyone with biochips. It enables torture on demand and thought monitoring. Senators know Americans won’t go for it. Americans also won’t go for gun control. So they are using false imprisonment and weapons folks aren’t aware of like the audio spotlight to invent mental illness so they can take away your guns. Then you can’f fight back against the biochip and the torture it enables!

I think you missed the point. This is a plan to take away folks right to bear arms. They use weapons folks aren’t aware of like audio spotlight. They take then to “crisis stabilization wards” and label them mental health patients. The plan is to put biochips on everyone. The chip enables torture and thought monitoring. They know Americans won’t go for it and they know we don’t want gun control. So they take away our guns and leave us helpless to torture and abuse. Go to forbes.com and read about Brandon Raub. There are thousands of men in a jail here labeled “mental health” patients that suddenly started hearing voices. I studied Psychology and held a classified security clearance years ago. It is criminal and people need to be aware!

As to the Guns and Ammo magazine for 2 years for $15. You are all liars! It’s a great magazine and just because one dope who works there spoke up for gun control and their PR attempt was a failure does not mean the magazine or most it’s employees are anti-gun.
Honestly I think most that say they will never sub to Guns and Ammo already paid for their two year sub. Hypocrites.
Myself, I just sent them a check this morning.

Really? This just bolsters my notion that you guys are simply obsessed like children with a toy, but whatever.

This column is the most tepid thing I’ve ever read. A training course does not constitute infringement. At the least it’s debatable!

But If you guys get even a whiff of an opposing viewpoint, you completely freak out and ban the person. How is that reasonable? Insert “But the LIberals don’t tolerate X, Y and Z!!!” That’s true, but they can be crazy too. It doesn’t make you’re reaction correct.

This is why we call you Gun Nuts. Because you are. You’re not even willing to have a civil conversation and you wanna be armed to the teeth. Awesome.

It will enable you to test for anything like radon, flood chance,
ttermites and mold. Reearch suggests that there are very many people suffering from yast or fungus illness.
Dark mold is one of the most dangerous kinds of mold.

The people who are against our great 2ND AMENDMENT, either have never learned about our great 2ND AMENDMENT and are therefor totally clueless to what will surely happen to the United States without it, or they are definitely connected to and have intentions to do just that- which is to destroy the United States. Even those people who want to infringe even one measly smidgen/bit our great 2ND AMENDMENT Right to Guns, either have never learned about our great 2ND AMENDMENT and are therefor totally clueless to what will surely happen to the United States without it, or they are definitely connected to and have intentions to do just that- which is to destroy the United States.
To explain the 2ND AMENDMENT, our great 2ND AMENDMENT is the only thing which protects We the United States People from an internal threat on our Government and Country. It protects We the United States People from a tyranny that could easily happen and would eventually happen without our great 2ND AMENDMENT. The reason for this is, that our great 2ND AMENDMENT is the only thing that We the People of the United States have, that backs the Power of the People in the United States! It gives us a physical Power to protect the United States. For without our great 2ND AMENDMENT, We the People of the United States would be gun-less, powerless, defenseless, helpless, and totally hopeless as a people and a country. It would then mean repression, control, and the slaughter of any people who would so much as dare to open their mouth in opposition to those who would be ruling us with total Power like a dictatorship. For We the People of the U.S. have nothing else protecting us from a tyranny threat.
So the point about our great 2ND AMENDMENT and that being our Right to Guns- “shall not be infringed,” is absolutely NO joke! The United States would perish without it. For just as much as the sun that rises each morning and we need it to be there and it means our survival as people, so too does our great 2ND AMENDMENT have to be there to mean our survival as a United States People and our United States of America Country! For any person thinking about- “oh well we have our Military,” and they think that is all we need are- WRONG! For the truth is that any Government with plans to change things, commit a tyranny, etc., they could easily do things that would make the Military pointless to an internal over throw of our U.S. Government. We the People of the United States would also then have NO Power as a People, we’d be a powerless people.